(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Annual Reports of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (1958-1973)"

Pu blic Document No. 163 /A^ 

Qlbp Olnmmonmpallii of HaasarijuHPttB 

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 



THIRTEENTH 

ANNUAL REPORT 
of the 

Kg^ss Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimina tion 

December 1, 1957 - November 30, 1958 




Mildred H. ]Mahoxey, Chairman 
Walter C. Carrixgtox, Cciuiuissioncr 
Emanuei (t 01 D8ERG, ' C ouim-s^ijiie^' 
Walter H. Xolax, h.veciiiivc "Secretary 

41 Tremont Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



^^^^^^l^ATioy OF THIS Document Approved by Bernard Solomon. State Purchasing Agent 
6m-3-59-924880 



Page 

INTRODUCTION . . ^^^j^ ^^^B^ BOSlpM 3 

Administration of the Laws 3 

MASS OPFTCXALS 

A List of Civil Rights Statutes Administered by Tne^ommission ... 4 

ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 4 

Complaints and Investigations 4 

Age Amendment 4 

Places of Public Accommodation 5 

Public Housing 7 

Fair Educational Practices . . . , 9 

Publicly-Assisted Housing . 13 

Statistical Report ^ 13 

EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES 14. 

Conferences 14 

Council Activities IS 

Council Membership .17 

APPENDIX 

Report of the Governor's Conference on Civil Rights 21 



A 

THIRTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION 
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION 

INTRODUCTION 

Ag-ainst the backdrop of Little Rock and the intensification of the cold war as a 
result of scientific advances, with its subtle civil rights overtones, the MCAD in the 
past year found itself in an important period of consolidation; exploration with a 
sensitive 1957 housing law and steady progress toward its constant goals of the com- 
plete elimination of discrimination in the fields of employment, public housing and 
publicly assisted private housing, education and public accommodations. 

No significant law was passed in the period covered by the MCAD's current annual 
report although it is vital to underscore that the Commission now includes within its 
jurisdiction the enforcement of more anti-discrimination laws than any other similar 
body in the thirteen states which have such statutes. 

Complete success in every endeavor could not be claimed by the Commission and 
there was even discouragement with the relatively small jurisdictional areas which the 
publicly assisted private housing law of 1957 brought under the Commission's super- 
vision. 

In areas such as education, difficult problems were resolved after study, consulta- 
tion and careful deliberation — such as the affirmation of the Commission's require- 
ment that photographs be eliminated on college application blanks. This interpreta- 
tion of the Fair Educational Practices Act was opposed by a small but important 
number of institutions of higher learning which subsequently agreed to cooperate with 

. the ruling for the time being. 

It would be impossible to thank everyone who counseled with and cooperated whole- 
heartedly with the Commission in the period under consideration. However the 
efforts on state and community levels of our eight advisory councils, numerous con- 

• ferees and many interested organizations should be noted. Without this type of con- 
tinuing assistance from such influential quarters sound consolidation and progress 
could not have been achieved in the past year. 

ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAWS 

1. Enforcing the Law 

When a case is brought by an individual or his attorney, it is assigned to one of 
the commissioners and a field representative. The field representative interviews 
people, studies records and eventually reports the facts which he discovers to the 
investigating commissioner who calls- the interested parties into conference and tries 
to settle the matter on an informal basis. If necessary, the Commission has the power 
to subpoena. If a matter cannot be settled in the conference period it is referred to 
the other two commissioners for a hearing which may be public or private. 

2. Investigations 

An investigation deals with a situation which does not begin with a formal com- 
plaint from an individual, but it must relate to instances where trouble is manifest 
and can be traced to the factors of race, religious creed, national origin, age or 
ancestry and so is of concern to the Commission. The Commission recognizes what 
it considers to be a danger signal and tries to straighten out the matter in a coopera- 
tive manner. The information which triggers the investigation may come from a 
reputable source or agency or may be an incident involving an organization exempted 
from the provisions of the statutes. Under such circumstances the Commission in- 



4 



vites people to a conference stating the reason for such an invitation. At no time has 
such an invitation been ignored. The majority of such conferences are successful but 
failures are not unknown. 

3. Education 

The educational program attempts to acquaint the general community with the work 
of the Commission to the end that public understanding, sympathy and support may 
be stimulated and the services given by the Commission may be made clear. (For 
amplification see section on Educational Activities.) 

A List of Civil Rights Statutes Administered by the Commission 

Chapter 368 of the Legislative Acts of 1946 brought into being the original Fair 
Employment Practice Commission as well as the Fair Employment Practice Law, 
Chapter 151B of the General Laws. 

AMENDMENTS 

Chapter 479 of the Legislative Acts of 1950 changed the name of the Commission 
to its present one, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, and also^ in- 
creased the scope and jurisdiction of the Commission by placing within its province 
the administration of the Public Accommodations Statute and the Public Housing 
Statute. 

Chapter 697 of the Legislative Acts of 1950 increased the scope of the fair employ- 
ment practice statute to include age, defined as 45 to 65. 

Chapter 437 of the Legislative Acts of 1953 further defined a place of public accom- 
modation, resort or place of amusement. 

Chapter 274 of the Legislative Acts of 1955 provided that any person seeking a bond 
or surety bond conditioned upon the faithful performance of his duties shall not be 
required to furnish information as to^ his race, color, religious creed, national origin 
or ancestry in applying for such a bond. 

Chapter 334 of the Legislative Acts of 1956 provided for the transfer of the juris- 
diction of the Fair Educational Practices Law from the Board of Education to the 
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. 

Chapter 426 of the Legislative Acts of 1957 provided that no person or group of 
persons may be denied the sale, rental or lease of private housing which is publicly 
assisted, because of their race, creed, color or national origin. 

ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 

Complaints and Investigations 

This report covers the period from December 1, 1957 to November 30, 1958. 

The Commission, during this time, received and processed 293 matters involving 
discrimination based on race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry. 

The Commission stafif conferred with officials of 640 business concerns throughout 
the Commonwealth. 

The purpose of these conferences was to minimize the possibilities of violation, of 
the law by ofifering instructions, interpretations, answers to specific questions and 
general information pertaining to the statutes ; to review employment application 
forms and hiring policies and to obtain compliance with the posting of the summary 
of the law in a conspicuous place on the premises. 

Of the 640 employers conferred with, 170 were found to have unlawful inquiries 
on employment application forms. For the most part the unlawful inquiries dealt 
with the age of the applicant. The forms were corrected. 

Age Amendment 

The Commission employs a system of screening help wanted advertisements of 
Massachusetts newspapers for possible violations of the age amendment. 

Notices are sent to the employers and employment agencies specifying the viola- 
tions noted and requesting written answers for determination as to whether the age 
specification was based on a bona fide occupational qualification. 



5 



422 such notices were sent out during the past year. Eighteen employers requested 
exemptions on the ground that age was a bona fide job quahfication. All of the 
exemption requests were refused for lack of sufficient evidence to warrant the grant- 
ing of an exemption. 

Places of Public Accommodation 

The Commission annually reviews the advertising materials used by places of public 
accommodation located within the Commonwealth. This year the materials of 851 
resorts, hotels and motels were examined and all were found to be free of any phrase- 
ology implying limitations based upon religion, color or race. Complaints, however, 
continue to come to the Commission alleging racial or religious discrimination on 
the part of some places of public accommodation. The Commission as part of its 
continuing educational program for 1959 has prepared an official poster to be dis- 
played in a conspicuous location on the premises of all places of public accommodation. 
The poster reads as follows : 

"This is a place of 
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION 
Our accommodations and facilities are available to all orderly persons. 
This establishment is a place of public accommodation, according to the Mass- 
achusetts Law Against Discrimination, Chapter 272, Section 98, of the General 
Laws, as amended. 

The Law Prohibits Us From Discriminating Against Persons Because Of 

Their Religion, Color Or Race. 
It is the declared policy of this establishment to serve all orderly persons on 
their request, without discrimination because of religion, color or race. 
This notice provided for distribution by the Massachusetts Commission Against 
Discrimination, 41 Tremont Street, Boston. Telephone CApitol 7-3111." 
Illustrative of the public accommodations cases handled during the past year are 
the following : 

Hotels 

Complainants, an interracial couple, alleged that a written confirmation which they 
had for a double room for one week was not honored by the owner of respondent 
I hotel when they appeared to pick up their reservations. The owner at first claimed 
I that the reservations w^ere for a different date but upon complainants' insistence that 
he recheck his records he verified that the reservations were for the date stated by 
complainants. The ow^ner then stated that he could give them no accommodations in 
I the hotel proper, but would put them up in a cottage in the rear. He promised them 
I that he would see if he could give them something better in the morning. Complain- 
ants found the cottage quite unacceptable and when they were unable to get quarters 
in the hotel itself in the morning, they left. 

The owner insisted to the Commission that Negroes were welcome at respondent 
hotel and that six had stayed there that summer. His actions in the instant case were 
based upon his "shock" at seeing an interracial couple. When informed that the 
public accommodation law protected such couples from discrimination, he agreed to 
abide by the law in the future and to write a letter of apology to the complainants, 
which letter would also include an invitation to them to enjoy the full facilities of 
the respondent upon their next visit to Cape Cod. (PVlll-II-C ) . 

Complainants in the foregoing case, upon being denied suitable accommodations, 
sought the advice and counsel of a local priest. He referred them to the Cape Cod 
representative of the Commission, who made reservations for them by phone at an- 
other hotel. When they appeared to check in and it was learned that they were an 
interracial couple the manager sought to discourage them from registering. He ad- 
mitted his obligation under the law but felt their presence would be injurious to busi- 
ness. He reached for a telephone book and offered to help them find accommodations 
elsewhere. Complainant-wife felt they had been humiliated and insisted to her hus- 
band that they leave. 

The manager feared the objections his sizeable southern clientele would make to 
liis granting accommodations to an interracial couple. Respondent agreed to the in- 



6 



vestigating commissioner's insistence that he make his facilities available to all in the 
future without distinction to race. He also agreed to send a letter to the complain- 
ants apologizing for his behavior and assuring them they would be welcome as guests 
at the respondent. (PVlll-lO-C). 

Motels 

Complainant, a Negro, alleged that she had made reservations for a party of six. 
Upon arrival at the motel the manager denied any phone call had been made. Com- 
plainant claimed that she saw a notation confirming her call on the manager's desk. 

In conferences with the investigating commissioner, agents of the respondent stead- 
fastly denied that any call had been made to the respondent on the morning in ques- 
tion. 

In further defense, respondent produced the names of two Negroes who were 
alleged to have recently shared the facilities of the motel. A check with them threw 
a cloud upon respondent's disavowals of a discriminatory policy. One of the Negroes, 
upon arriving to pick up a reservation made for him by a white friend, was told that 
there was no vacancy even though the vacancy sign was up. 

When verification of complainant's telephone call was made pursuant to Federal 
Communications Commission regulations, the investigating commissioner entered a 
finding of probable cause to credit the allegations of the complainant. The respondent 
was required to furnish a statement of a non-discriminatory policy to be followed in 
the future and to issue an apology to the complainant. (PV111-9-C). 

Dance Studio 

Complainant, a Negro, alleged that he had received a telephone call from respondent 
informing him that he had won two free dance lessons and a practice session. When 
he arrived with his wife at the dance studio at the appointed hour to receive his les- 
sons he was told that respondent had no knowledge of any call being placed to him. 
When complainant persisted, he and his wife were given a half hour lesson and told 
they would be contacted furtlier in regard to the second lesson. While at the studio, 
complainant's wife inquired how much it would cost per lesson if they chose to con- 
tinue with the instructions. She was informed that it would cost $14.50 per half hour 
for the two of them. The following day complainant's wife inquired by phone about 
the cost of lessons. She was informed that for six lessons the price would be $14.00. 

Investigation revealed that the respondent studio has over 100 different types of 
courses and rates. The $14.50 per half hour rate quoted to complainant's wife was 
standard for students already taking instruction. The six lesson rate quoted over the 
phone did not apply to anyone who was taking instruction under the free contest plan 
which first brought complainants to the studio. 

The respondent submitted a statement to the Commission affirming that it would 
operate in conformance with the Public Accommodations Law. In addition, complain- 
ant was offered an opportunity to continue with the free lessons he had won and also 
to take whatever future lessons he might desire at the same rates offered to all others. 
(PV111-4-C). 

Public Dance 

Complainant, a Negro, alleged that he had been refused admission to a dance ad- 
vertised in the daily newspapers as a public one. When he attempted to enter the 
dance hall with his companion he was asked if he was a member of the club giving 
the dance and his attention was directed to a sign on a table which said "members 
only." He went to protest to the management of the hotel at which the dance was 
held. When he returned the "members only" sign was down and white couples were 
being admitted without any inquiries being made of their membership status. 

Investigation revealed that dances sponsored by respondent were open to the general 
public and that anyone could become a "member" of the club by paying the admission 
fee of the dance. 

Respondent agreed not to use the membership dodge to bar Negroes from dances 
in the future and was required to instruct all of its personnel about the Public Accom- 
modation Law's mandate that all persons be admitted to its dances without discrimina- 
tion because of religion, color, or race. (PV11-9-C). 



Public Housing 

Studies of occupancy and the methods of tenant selection of various Public Housing 
Authorities are made each year. 

This year the following Housing Authorities were studied: 

1. Boston 6. New Bedford 

2. Brockton 7. Pittsfield 

3. Cambridge 8. Plymouth 

4. Falmouth 9. Springfield 

5. Holyoke 10. Worcester 



State Program 



BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units Occupied No. of Non-White Families 







1957 


1958 


B roadway 


941 


10 


12 


Camden Street 


72 


72 


72 


Commonwealth 


639 


18 


18 


Fanueil 


258 


2 


2 


Fairmount 


202 








Archdale 


288 


8 


5 


Orient Heights 


353 


4 


5 


Gal li van Boulevard 


251 








Franklin Field 


504 


19 


20 


South Street 


132 








Total 


3,640 


133 


134 


Federal Program 












1957 


1958 


Charlestown 


1,117 





3 


Mission Hill 


1,019 








Lenox Street* 


306 


306 


302 


Orchard Park 


745 


93 


100 


South End 


498 


241 


253 


Heath Street 


405 


13 


15 


East Boston 


411 








Franklin Hill Avenue 


372 


14 


16 


Whittier Street 


197 


180 


185 


Washington and Beech Streets 


274 


4 


3 


Mission Hill Extension 


567 


314 


386 


Bromley Park 


690 


110 


158 


Columbia Point 


1,407 


103 


137 


Old Harbor Village 


989 








Old Colony 


847 


3 


2 



Total 



9,844 



1,381 



1,560 



*Lenox Street Development has one white family in occupancy. 
3 units unoccupied. 



BROCKTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units Occupied No. of Non-White Families 

1957 1958 
219 6 6 

Federal Program 100 7 9 



CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units Occupied No. of Non-White Families 

1957 1958 

Woodrow Wilson Court 69 3 2 

Jefferson Park 109 4 6 



Lincoln \\''ay 


60 


3 


2 


Roosevelt Towers 


228 


9 


23 


Jackson Gardens 


46 


...... , . 





Jefferson Park Extension 






1 1 
1 i 


X. Oldl 


712 


:joH ^niwoITioilloriJ is,: 


4.4 


Is 








Federal Program 










1957 




W^O cVlin or+r\ri H^Ittic 
>\ dbllllJ^LUIl J_^1H13 




Oo 


oo 


Putnam Gardens 


123 


42 


43 


New Towne Court 


294 


8 


10 


Corcoran 


152 


4 


3 


Total 


893 


92 


94 



FALMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State PrograM'^>:j Xo. of Units Occupied N'o. of Non-White Families 

i^v 1957 tcv/L;S2s5& 

Amvets Avenue -"^ 50 P^'^^^ ivJj^t^O 

Mayflower - 24 ijrl£9V/nomu^J 

2 i isonfi '^ 

Total 74 3 3 " 



HOLYOKE HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 



Xo. of Units Occupied No. of Non-White Families 
-ci. i957^^5iJ- 1958 



Beaudoin Village 

!Minnie R. Dwight Village 

Total 
Federal Program 

Jackson Parkway 
Lyman Terrace 



Total 



219 
42 

261 



219 
167 

386 



IBTOT 



1957 1958 
0., . , 



NEW BEDFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 



Parkdale 
Blue Meadows 
Nashmont 

Crest^aew-Westwoo d 

Total . f 
Federal Program 



No. of Units Occupied No. of Non-White' Pamilies 
^^^^ i^,f?ejSniij^^ 

150 13 13^ 

80 _ Q , -Oq 

2 vnofoO mo 



75 
405 



Bay Village 

Presidential Heights -riHOHTUA OV 
Brickenwood 

Westlawn ^wtitiO %h 

Total 



200 

200 
300 
200 

900 



18 18 

""''^'^i^^iin^ 1^58 
119 136 

:oT^DOHa s ^1 

34i/AMD-..:.-i36^-- 
191 



180 



State Program 

^ Wilson Park 
Federal Program 
Victory Hill 



PITTSFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY " ' 

No. of Units Occupied No. of Non-White Families 

1957,,^, 1958 
126 O " ^ 



m 



99 



9 



PLYMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units Occupied No. of Non-White Families 

1957 1958 

Olmstead Terrace and Standish Court' ' 40'""' ' ' 

^ SPRINGFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY - -rr't , 

State Program No. of Units Occupied No. of Non-White Families 

1957 1958 

Reed Village 200^^^'^^^'^- 13 13 

Robinson Gardens 136 ' 6 ' - ^6 ' 

Duggan Park .'ij^supai 196 ^jA t>di 6 iuoS" 

Carpe Diem i £ ladl 7S J 3di lo 1 ' Ziloq 

• Jnsbul?. 1 3ii1 ^tJno 

Total 'RDub3. T.} 607 Tsbriu - 26 26Ginu 

Federal Program . Lrtr^rmohaq odi . . ^^5;..' i^b^-^p^^ ^ 

Lucy Mallory Village . 34. - ,r . ,^ . . ^-r $ -,, -)> Closed 

WORCESTER HOUSING AUTHORITY ^ 

State Progr^o^v. Nlol^fyJJnits Occupied - Me. ^rtif, Non-White Families 

■ ^r'i ^.hwTjd: 1957 1958 

Curtis Apartment"'- 390 /wIod 3 3 

Lakeside Apartments 204 - ^nimonab n ^ ^ 

George F. Booth Memorial Apartments 75 "-^ ^^"P'^ avs j ll£n2 .D^.-p 

Total , . 669 .^^^^^'voiq isriJiu} Ojcl loiqLd':^ 

Federal Program — : norJnj 

t?nfK-9K ^tKrrifninogrh 9?fvrt9rilo lo Jimil lo abi^SI? oT (-^^ 
Great Brook Valley Gardens 6Q0iimbR -gnH^D?. znosiff^ 10 n9sh20 

Fair Educational Practices 

Pressures for entrance into our educational institutions continue to mount with the 
expectation that the next decade will find double the present number of students seek- 
ing entrance to our colleges and universities. With present facilities, the latter will 
have to reject thousands of otherwise qualified youngsters although there is hope and 
evidence that the educational world will gird itself and find support on both public 
and private levels to meet this crisis. 

Nevertheless, such a situation necessitates that the MCAD, \vithin the scope of its 
own interest, continues to give strong attention to the Fair Educational Practices Act, 
passed in Massachusetts in 1949 and originally administered by the State Department 
of Education but, since 1956, transferred to the jurisdiction of the Commission, 

In the past year, for instance, long after a public hearing held on May 17, 1957, 
at the State House in which the MCAD consulted with interested parties on its own 
interpretation of fair educational practices in Massachusetts, opposition developed in 
the ranks of a small number albeit important institutions of higher learning which 
contested the Commission's ruling that photographs should be eliminated in application 
blanks until after a student had been accepted for entrance to the institution. The 
MCAD, employing long precedent in the field of fair employment practices where 
photographs are ruled off employment application forms until a prospective employee 
is actually hired, felt strongly that a student's photograph did constitute a possible 
"written inquiry" concerning race, religion, color or national origin. This type of 
written inquiry is specifically prohibited by the statute. The Commission was not 
unmindful that there was some benefit to be reaped by the use of photographs since 
a few institutions had stated that they actually sought minority groups' students but 
were handicapped at being unable to ascertain immediately whether, for instance, a 
person was a Negro, and also that there were professional advantages, for purposes 
of identification or recall, which admissions officers found so important in the discharge 
of their duties. Neverthless, the Commission felt that such profit could be out- 



10 



weighed by a return to intolerant policies on the part of others who might bow to 
pressures and greet the reappearance of photographs on application blanks as the signal 
to evade the law. 

So moot was the problem that not all members of the MCAD were in complete 
agreement. However, it is pertinent to note that the MCAD, before reaching a final 
decision in this matter, had asked the office of the late Attorney General, George 
Fingold, for an informal opinion on whether the Commission was, indeed, acting within 
its proper bounds in this interpretation of the fair educational practices law. 

In a reply to the chairman of the MCAD, dated December 20, 1957, Asst. Attorney 
General Samuel W. Gaffer wrote as follows : 

"Your recent letter to the Attorney General requesting an opinion regarding the 
policy and interpretation of the Commission, that a request for a photograph by edu- 
cational institutions, before the prospective student is accepted for admission, is an 
unfair educational practice under the 'Fair Educational Practices Act', has been 
handed to me for attention. I do not think your request requires a formal opinion, 
but in order to assist you in the performance of your duties I shall advise you in- 
formally as follows : 

(St. 1949 c. 726 as amended by St. 1956 c. 334) 

(G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 151C) provides: 

"Section 1. Declaration of Policy. — It is hereby declared to be the policy of 
the Commonwealth that the American ideal of equality of opportunity requires 
that students otherwise qualified, be admitted to educational institutions without 
regard to race, color, religion, creed or national origin, except that, with regard 
to religious or denominational educational institutions, students, otherwise quali- 
fied, shall have the equal opportunity to attend therein without discrimination 
because of race, color or national origin . . . 
Chapter 151C further provides: 

Section 2. It shall be an unfair educational practice for an educational insti- 
tution: — 

(a) To exclude or limit or otherwise discriminate against any United States 
citizen or citizens seeking admission as students to such institution because of 
race, religion, creed, color or national origin. 

(c) To cause to be made any written or oral inquiry concerning the race, 
religion, color or national origin of a person seeking admission except that . . . 
This section is not intended to limit or prevent an educational institution from 
using any criteria other than race, religion, color or national origin in the ad- 
mission of students. 
The question is — 

'Has the Commission abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously 
or otherwise not in accordance with law in ruling that a request for a photo- 
graph before the prospective student is accepted for admission is an unfair edu- 
cational practice imder the "Fair Educational Practices Act ?" ' Prior to St. 
1956 c. 334 the administration of the Fair Educational Practices Act was in the 
Department of Education and on August 10, 1956, was transferred to the Com- 
mission Against Discrimination. 

"I have studied the 'Bulletin of Policies and Interpretations (January 1954) 
of the Massachusetts Department of Education' entitled 'Equality of Educa- 
tional Opportunity*, the Bulletin of Policies, Interpretations, Rules and Regu- 
lations of your commission, relating to Fair Educational Practices, promulgated, 
after a public hearing. May 17, 1957, and I have compared G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 
151B and 'Policies of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination' 
relating to employment practices (1946 to date). 

"A statute must be interpreted according to the legislative intent appearing 
from the language thereof in connection with the subject matter and the object 
to be accomplished. Here the legislature specifically made a declaration of 
policy that 'students otherwise qualified be admitted to educational institutions 
without regard to race, color, religion, creed or national origin . . .', and further 
declared that an exclusion, limitation or discrimination because of race, religion, 
creed, color or national origin or to cause to be made any written . . . inquiry 
concerning same was an unfair educational practice for an educational insti- 
tution. 

"General Laws (Ter. Ed.) c. 4 section 7, thirty eighth, provides that in con- 
struing statutes * "written" and "in writing" shall include printing, engraving. 



11 



lithographing and any other mode of representing words and letters' with a 
special provision relating to a 'written signature'. 
"See also Assessors of Boston vs. Neal 311 Mass. 192, 194 
'The word "photograph" is a combination of the Greek words photos, mean- 
ing light, and graphos, meaning writing, and a photograph is a light writing.' 
"Alpers vs. United States 175 F2d 137, 138 

"It appears that the statute is intended to prohibit the requirement of any 
form of information from which an educational institution might determine the 
race, creed, color or national origin of a student applicant. A picture could 
disclose the race, creed, color or national origin of a person, information which 
the statute forbids and would appear to come within the reference to 'written 
f ... inquiry' prohibited in section 2 (c) of said chapter 15 IC. 

"If it should be contended that the language of the statute is doubtful, then a 
construction put upon it or similar languag-e by your commission is strong evi- 
dence of its meaning. See Malaguti vs. Rosen 262 Mass. 555, 563 ; Scott vs. 
Civil Service Commissioner 272 Mass. 237, 241. 

"I am therefore of the opinion that a policy or interpretation by your com- 
mission that a request for a photograph by educational institutions before a 
prospective student is accepted for admission, is an unfair educational practice 
under the Fair Educational Practices Act, seems to be well within the phrase- 
ology of chapter 15 IC." 
The Commission also conferred with its State Advisory Council on the problem and 
was encouraged when that body gave unequivocal support to the Commission's inter- 
pretation of the place of photographs on application blanks. 

With the inclusion of the Fair Educational Practices Act under the aegis of the 
Commission since 1956, it became of vital interest to the Commission to ascertain the 
extent of teaching going on in the secondary schools of the Commonwealth on the 
subject of civil rights. A number of years ago, a pamphlet entitled "Discrimination 
— Danger to Democracy" had been circulated in the schools and its author. Dr. 
Thomas J. Curtin, Director of The Division of Civic Education, State Department of 
Education, kindly consented to bring the document up to date so that a new supply 
could be made available by the Commission to a large number of secondary schools, 
both public and private. Nearly 5,000 copies were thus recently placed in about fifty 
schools ; and social science teachers especially were found very eager to have such 
prepared and authoritative information available for instructional purposes. 

During the past year, these schools were frequently visited by the Commission's 
field representative for fair educational practices, and in his observations of the 
courses of instruction, he could report that Alassachusetts' students are receiving 
creditable instruction in the fields relating to civil rights. 

The Commission also received permission from the Division of Educational Refer- 
ence of Purdue University, LaFayette, Indiana to study the results of a nation-wide 
poll which has annually been conducted by the Purdue Opinion Panel. 

Questions about discrimination were included in their Poll Number 52, the original 
ones asked in 1951 now being repeated to find out whether there had been significant 
changes of opinion. 

The poll was circulated throughout the entire nation and although only about 9,000 
persons were selected to take part, it is believed by the panel that the results are an 
excellent cross-section barometer of how young people in grades ten, eleven and 
twelve are thinking. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, returns were accepted 
from about 1,000 students representing high schools in industrial cities, rural and 
urban residential communities. 

The Commission has studied the results of the poll and is convinced that the Massa- 
chusetts reactions indicate that the spirit of "Fair play" does prevail in our schools. 
It might also be deduced that our young people have been influenced by : the success- 
ful operation of fair practices legislation in employment, education, housing and public 
accommodations ; an awareness through good instruction and available material of the 
meaning of progressive legislation and sympathetic enforcement of these laws ; a more 
wholesome attitude throughout the state regarding favorable consideration of thq 
rights of minorities. 



12 



The fact that a more generous attitude is indicated on the part of students in senior 
classes seems to indicate that the realization of our group obligations has accom- 
panied the maturing process in the schools. 

It would be wrong to conclude that the job of combatting discrimination is done. 
However, some unfavorable reactions to the poll indicate that there are still percent- 
ages which cling to prejudice. 

Nonetheless, the results of the poll plus the almost complete elimination of any dis- 
criminator}^ questions on the application blanks of colleges, universities, professional 
schools and secondary schools in Massachusetts illustrate the marked willingness of 
most educational authorities to cooperate with the substantive meaning of Fair Edu- 
cational Practices Act. The future seems especially bright and what with the aid of 
competent teaching at secondary school levels, many of our teen-agers should experi- 
ence an even healthier improvement in their attitudes toward civil rights issues. 

An extract from the Purdue Opinion Poll showed the following : 

SummM^ i3noi;=.immo: . 

-rr ■ 

le Do you think some racial or religious groups should be prevented from living in 
^v::' certain sections of cities? . 
'^ National 30% agreed 70% disagreed 'JfiiH ifinoiiBDub/i ini'd sfii > 

Strongest disagreement from Grade X ".DrEI igjqsrb lo 
^■^i Massachusetts 19% agreed 81% disagreed h-. oaJ.s nobai.^nc. 

Strongest disagreement from Grade rrarl-.v bsgr.-^ 

2. Are Jews a Racial group? .T^otonq lo -odq arfj l 

National 27-32% agreed 29-35% undecided ic"^ ff36% disagreed 
Strongest agreement from Grade XII srnBos'd 
Strongest disagreement from Grade XI ' 
^^'^ Massachusetts 30-35% agreed 19-24% undecided 43-53% disagreed ' - 
-•iG ,io:. ; Strongest agreement from Grade XI - -y--.. . v. - 

io Jfwml-icqsa 3.^ -Strongest disagreement from Grade XII ^liQ .nrj-m3 .T. gcmoriT 
3/-' Should there be laws against marriage between persons of different races? 
_ National 34-40% agreed 21-25% undecided 31-40% disagreed 
j''"- ■ ' Strongest agreement from Grade XII 
f oisz 9VKr{ • Strongest disagreement from Grade XI 

Massachusetts 10-12% agreed 15-20% undecided ■ 67-69% disagreed 
- Strongest agreement from Grade X '^'^'^"^ r-r.^iy 

;rij lo i-.A-y.hvri':. Strongest disagreement from Grade XII •y-fiiUiib::vV;^i iyy. 

4? - Sh^Id'H^e lifriit and control immigration of foreigners into this'^ctiuHtry "as'-hSffih ' 
as we do? ^kfBtrbar 
National 59-68% agreed 23-30% undecided ^ 11-14% disagreed*^ ' 
3bf7/-noi}nn Strongest agreement from Grade XII lavinU subiu*^! 'ic 

Strongest disagreement from Grade X {ilsM- - "^^ ■ 

\cr Massachusetts 51-64% agreed 21-32% undecideidbifni-ir;?12-27% disagreed 
jfiiioi. c^r - Strongest agreement from Grade X 

Strongest disagreement from Grade XII 

50.'" The Purpose of Brotherhood Week is; ^n- ji/origijoinj i^'yu-Aiiyio c£n ji.vq 
n; A. To make us forget our differences vgrf Yt .tiK'T ')>'n? h^ilW[5r> 9737/ - 
bni\ i^. National 50-56% Massachusetts 57-60% - ^oid tri^^ 

fjg-fBi.',- To make us proud of our own group but have respect to others? Hj ■^t'? 
Is:,.' National 23-27% Massachusetts 20-23% 

C. To make us tolerant of those who do not believe as we do : 
National 7.5-8% r Massachusetts 10t24% 

r.D.r, Do not know: , ■■• ■ -^,r 
' ' National 10-13% Massachusetts 7-9% 

6. Should pupils of all races and nationalities attend school together everywhere in 
this country? 

^'^cNational 51% agreed 22-25% undecided 25-28% disagreed 
oth to no?j Strongest agreement from Grade X j JuoilguoiriJ dbisl- 
Strongest disagreement from Grade XI .s--'-^' 



13 

Massachtiseffs 68-81% agreed 20% undecided ' '11% disagreed 
Strongest agreement from Grade XII 
Strongest disagreement from Grade XI 
7. Would you favor a law in your State which requires employers to hire a person 
if he is qualified for a job regardless of his race, religion or color? 
National 62-67% agreed 14-16% undecided 16-20% disagreed 
Strongest agreement from Grade X • iie noilsgiJ^iaYni t; 
Strongest disagreement from Grade XII " ■ / ^.^ 

Massachusetts 70-80% agreed 8-12% undecided 12-19% disagreed 
Strongest agreement from Grade XI 
Strongest disagreement from Grade X jyg^q-^jg 

Publicly- Assisted Housing 

On September 5, 1957 Massachusetts joined New York, New Jersey, Oregon and 
Washington in banning discrimination in the sale, lease or rental of private housing 
accommodations which are publicly assisted. The Legislation setting forth the Com- 
monwealth's public policy in this area was placed under the administration of the 
MCAD. Publicly-Assisted housing is defined in the law as including all housing 
accommodations in housing which is constructed after July 1, 1950 and which is 
either tax exempt in whole or in part, or which is constructed under the federal gov- 
ernment's urban renewal program or upon land acquired through the Coinmonwealth's 
power of condemnation. After October 1, 1957 housing accommodations located in 
multiple dwellings of three or more families which receive FHA or VA assistance 
are also defined as publicly assisted as are single housing units receiving FHA or VA 
aid which are located in a development of ten or more contiguous units. 

In the twelve months since the law's enactment, relatively few complaints have 
been filed with the Commission. The reasons for the dearth of complaints are not 
hard to find. Almost no apartment houses anywhere in the Commonwealth are 
covered by the law. Information made available by the Federal Housing Authority 
reveals that only one apartment house has been constructed since the law's effective 
date by builders using FHA mortgage guarantee. For all practical purposes, there- 
fore, a person discriminated against in the rental of an apartment has no effective 
remedy under the existing legislation at the present time. A person wishing to buy 
a home in a suburban development fares somewhat better if the developer has either 
used FHA mortages, guarantees to build or offers his homes for sale under FHA or 
VA mortgage guarantee programs. 

Both before and since the passage of the publicly-assisted housing law the Com- 
mission has received complaints grounded upon private housing discrimination. The 
Commission's policy has been to investigate these complaints and to attempt to use 
its good offices to conciliate them. Because the field of private housing is outside 
the Commission's enforcement jurisdiction, efforts at conciliation have been largely 
without success. It is to be noted that this lack of success in regard to private hous- 
ing is not at all typical of the Commission's experiences in other fields over which 
it lacks enforcement powers. :iC?/io [£(ioiicoubo briB IsinatEii 

In the past year the Commission has received thirteen sworn complaints charging 
color discrimination in private housing. In only three of these did the Commission 
have jurisdiction. All three cases were against suburban developers and are still 
open at the time of this report. The ten complaints over which jurisdiction was lack- 
ing all dealt with rental discrimination. In one of these the Commission was able 
to persuade the landlord to rent to the complainant and in another it was successful 
in securing a promise from an apartment house owner that he would rent without 
discrimination in the future. 

^^IM^'P^"^ ynon^, ,oiiRouh3 .e.^ni.ud to 

November 10, 1946 to November 30, 1958 -hrtv-- >noi.tr,l3T 
CttMKLAiNTSTijbol ,noij£ioqooo 3tBj8-i3}n; bDylovm osIb r_5'jn3~iotno-j s-. niriT 

Initiated and receiv^';:.?^;;L:^mo8 to fi^vs Ims qldznohe. 

Closed after formal hearing' l.9.^..,^^.{f.^... 23?^^^^^^ 3 '^'1?:?'. 

Closed after investigation and cohfereiice 868 '' 



14 



Closed for lack of probable cause 496 

Closed for lack of jurisdiction 51 

Withdrawn 82 

Pending investigation and conference 42 

Investigations Without Formal Complaint: 

Initiated by the Commission 729 

Closed after investigation and conference 577 

Closed for lack of probable cause 127 

Transferred to complaint 4 

Pending investigation and conference 21 

Regulating and Supervising Age Amendment : 

Pending investigation and conference 19 563 

Closed for lack of probable cause 22 

Closed after investigation and conference 522 

TOTAL 2834 

Nature of Complaints and Investigations : 

Based upon alleged color discrimination 1059 

Based upon alleged religious discrimination 277 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of race 47 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of national origin 294 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of ancestry 32 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of age 1125 

Type of Complaints and Investigations : 

Against employers 2272 

Against employment agencies 131 

Against labor unions 34 

Others 51 

Public Accommodations 165 

Newspaper Advertising 145 

Public Housing 13 

Fair Educational Practices 3 

Publicly Assisted Housing 20 



EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES 

Inquiries 

465 individuals visited the Commission office to make inquiries concerning their 
rights and obligations under the provisions of the Civil Rights statutes. 

Speaking Engagements 

Eighty- four speaking engagements were filled during the year. Participating were 
the members of the Commission and staff. These appearances before civic, religious, 
fraternal and educational organizations enable the Commission to extend the scope of 
its educational program. 

Conferences 

The Commission maintains an open-door policy on conferences with individuals 
and organizations having problems that fall within the jurisdiction of this state 
agency. It has found that frank discussion with all parties concerned has proven 
to be a most effective and beneficial means of straightening out troublesome situa- 
tions. 

In carrying out this policy the Commission held 275 conferences with representatives 
of business, education, minority groups, labor, civic organizations and community 
relations councils. 

Thirteen of these conferences also invoked interstate cooperation, federal — state 
and intergroup relationship and even discussion of some international matters involv- 
ing human rights. A list of these conferences and topics discussed follows : 
William A. Darkey, Jr., Research Director, Equal Opportunity Commission of Haiti- 



15 



more. Topic: Employment Discrimination Because of Age. 

Miss Jeanette Croteau, Washington, D. C. School System. Topic: Administration 
of Fair Educational Practices. 

William T. Stansbury, Human Relations Consultant, Federal Housing Administra- 
tion. Topic: Methods of Cooperation in the Administration of the Private 
Housing Publicly Assisted Law. 

Russell Leavitt, Deputy Commissioner, New Hampshire State Department of Educa- 
tion, Topic : Fair Educational Practices Administration. 

Charles Leavitt, President, Board of Trustees, American Secondary Schools, Beirut, 
Lebanon. Topic: Fair Educational Practices in Massachusetts, 

Professor Milton L Konvitz, Cornell Law School; Theodore Leskes, Cotmsel for the 
American Jewish Committee ; Milo Manley, Deputy Director, Pennsylvania Fair 
Employment Practices Commission. Topic : Compliance Function of New Jersey 
Division Against Discrimination. 

Hon. Irene White, Member, House of Parliament. Topic : Proposed law in England 
regarding places of public accommodation. 

Charles E. Haines, Director, Employment and Retirement Section National Com- 
mittee on the Aging. Topic : The need for legislation for senior citizens. 

E. A. Vasey, Finance Minister of Kenya. Topic : Civil Rights legislation. 

Annual Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
People. 

Annual Conference of the National Association of Intergroup Relations Officials. 
Conference of Commission Against Discrimination, Denver, Colorado. Thirteen 

State Conference on Civil Rights. 
New York Conference of Governors of Civil Rights States. Fair Employment 

Practices at Work in Twelve States, 

Council Activities 

The Commission is ver>' proud of its eight advisory councils which assist it in edu- 
cational work. The Councils are made up of distinguished citizens well known for 
their civic interests. They translate the Commission to their respective communities 
and they keep the MCAD aware of what is going on in their areas. If tensions begin 
to develop or misunderstandings arise they are alert to report them in order that 
constructive action may be taken to prevent serious trouble. In this role they have 
been singularly successful. Besides this responsibility the Councils have shown a 
special interest this year in the 1957 legislation dealing with private housing publicly 
assisted. 

State Advisory Council 

The chief responsibility of this Council is to consult with the Commission on items 
of major policy. 

Such an item was the Commission's deliberations on whether or not photographs 
might be accepted by school authorities before student applicants were admitted. The 
Advisory Council agreed with the Commission's decision that such photographs should 
not be accepted prior to enrollment. This decision may be reviewed after a year if 
the school authorities so request. 

Seven Regional Councils 

Berkshire County Council Main Activities 

Study of twenty-three companies employing over 100 people. 
Study of forty-six companies employing under 100 people. 
Study of sub-standard housing in one area of Pittsfield. 
Study of policies of barber shops in Great Barrington. 
Study of houses being sold by the Veterans Administration. 

Boston Council Main Activities 

Study of placement of graduates of printing trades. 

Study of programs of Roxbury Memorial High School, Boston; Boston Trade 
School; Rindge Technical School, Cambridge. 



16 



Study of placement of applicants between the ages of 45t65.b3ri Boston employment 
agencies, both public and private. ^^uurlyuW .uso.yon'j ■>J)':uf/; .--aU 

New Bedford Council Main Activities \ 

! nr-rnnl.-; . ' . -^ 

The resignation of the Chairman, The Honorable Atigust C. Taveira, was accepted 
with regret. Judge Taveira, who was elevated to the Superior Court, will remain 
as a Council member. ; 

The Commission was fortunate in the acceptance of the chairmanship by Fred: W. 
Steele, Executive Secretary, New Bedford Cotton Manufacturers' Association., , : 
He will preside at the fall meeting to be held on December 3rd, 1958 which is 
shortly after the closing date, for this,, jeg^t,.^,^ i .x n;.:ju nJ^.^■^Ao~^'i 

-rr' North Shore CouNciL^^t^-'"'^'^ •/■^IrrfjM oltM ; 3ot^rmfn<5^AmfvA'(iTmT^l¥r'^-^ 

Seminar held by special committee to discuss opportunities in regard to scholarships 
lor college and special training for skilled jobs. 

Special committee to continue its small group meetings with young people supplying 
the questions they wish answered. r 

•iilj'lll'j'/L jiiJul vuiejaul ,'£C>j U'vi ,<:y,; hil =.-1 aOilHSi^i 

Springfield Council ;fp|.,fr>gf to^ b9->rt f>flT ':omoT ^fiTiy,iTiB?.i,-fn 
Discussion of New York City Housing Law and its possible impact on Massachu-^ 

setts. ' ' 

Preparation of mimeographed digest of integrated housing under construction in 

a number of cities throughout the country. ; - 

Study of State Employment Service office relative to placement of applicants aged ' 

45-65. 

Study of private agencies in relation to placement of applicants, 45-65. ■ "3/. 
Study of possible discrimination because of color in barber shops and beauty' JSIiSDns. 

Worcester Council Main Activities . > 

Final report on the 1957 Workshop for Negro Young People. " 

Meeting of Commission members, Council representatives and representatives o>f 
banks, realtors and home builders to discuss law about private housing pubii^:Jb^ :a§d; 
sisted. j -/-irft bn.^ 

Study of Graphic Arts to discover extent of job opportunities. 

Meeting with representatives of the Worcester Relocation Committee in order to 
determine what help Council can give in relocating families that have been.,<3felig;^.;i 
to move because of Urban Renewal Program. -r' hij^a-:. 

Cape Cod Council Main Activities ' ' 

The Cape Cod Council this year has been selected for a more detailed report. A 
Field Representative in that area has tried to reach every major community agency 
with information concerning the policies and responsibilities of the MCAD. , The 
following paragraphs are quoted from a report made in the fall of this year : ^^^'/'^ ^' 

Conferences hotq^oz^s od - 

biu. , ' With about, thirty families in Hyannis, Falmouth, ' OstefvillepMashpee 
\i 1B9V fi and Harwich. ■ ; 

2. With Chairman, Board of Selectmen, Mashpee; Falmouth Enterprise; 
Division of Employment Security, Hyannis ; Cape and Vineyard Electric 
Company, Hyannis ; Falmouth Police Department ; Hyannis Police De- 
Pj partment ; Boston Globe correspondent on Cape Cod; Cape Cod Stand- 
ard-Times; Chairman, Retail Board of Txade,.^Hy?innis,;^^ 
ing advice on the filing of complaints. ^T^'rrKqmoD^^^-ynoi to -rbuii 
Addresses ; ■ vbujS 

Quota Club, Hyannis ; Business and Professional Women's Club, Sotitii 
Yarmouth; Lawrence High School, Falmouth; Cape Verdean Club, Fal- 
mouth; Board, of Trade, Hyannis; Kiwanis, Hyannis; Weyar Matrons, 
West Yarmouth; St. Mary's Chapter, Order of Eastern Star, Hyannis; 
Tuesday Night Club, Hyannis; South Shore Citizens Club, Hingham; 
Daughters of Isabella, Hyannis; Pilgrim Guild, Duxbury|'50rie -$f6«r 
Broadcast, WOCB, West Yarmouth. 'S^'^'f^ : loorb,-. 



17 



Surveys 

1. Of school systems and industries in Hyannis, Fahnouth, Provincetown, 
Eastham, Wellfleet, Chatham and Orleans. ^ ^ cr' 

2. Of Public Housing in Plymouth and Falmouth. .bfa^nafoH . 

Public Accommodations \ b^Bv/bH .iG 

1. Screening brochures and pieces of literature requested by the Commis- 
sion of places of public accommodation, to determine whether or not 
there were any phrases indicative of discrimination. 

^n'i-3s22!' New motels or places of public accommodation under new management 
visited in Hyannis, West Yarmouth, Bass River, Harwichport, Sand- 
wich, Sagamore, Falmouth and Dennisport. 

Other Activim^^ ' ''^x 
nuH \b' ^^^^^^^^^ ^'^S^ school students, at their request, as a permanent group 
Aiu^ ' interested in civil rights statutes. These students were instructed as to 
the importance of attitudes, appearance and actions in the business and 
educational world in order to meet the competition which they must face. 

2. Periodic examinations prepared and given to accustom students to pre- 
hiring tests. 

State Advisory Council Membership - Ifii-Jnu'i ^ivHa .sIvkQ^^O .-rno/. 

John J. Desmond, Jr., Chairman, Draper. Sears ' ^' Company 

Dr. Gordon W. Allport, Professor of Psychology, Harvard University 

Rt. Rev. Robert P. Barry, LL.D., St. Clement's Parish 

Clarence Q. Berger, Dean of University Administration, Brandeis University 

Thomas H. Carens, Vice-President, Boston Edison Company 

Charles C. Dasey, Retired Manager, Cunard White Star SS Line, Secretary, 

Rotary Club of Boston 
Rabbi Roland B. Gittlesohn. Temple Israel, Boston 
Judge Jacob J. Kaplan, Former President, Boston Bar Association 
Dr. Owen B. Kiernan, Commissioner of Education, State Department of Edu- 
cation 

Rt. Rev. Anson Phelps Stokes, Jr., Bishop, Protestant Episcopal Diocese of 

Massachusetts ^ bimooJ 

Dean Howard Thurman, Alarsh Chapel, Boston University, ^ jnamYolq 
Regional Council Membership jjoSL aiiJ lo nr^miierD ,ddB5I x^ff^^ ' 

Berkshire County 'T JbwHJo^^.T Iub^ 

Bruce Crane, Chairman, Crane & Co., Inc., Dalton ' .nRlm3^^^ ludUJ. 
Bruno Aron, Proprietor, Festival House, Lenox 
Samuel E. Bloomberg, Esq. 

Nathaniel S. Brown, Great Barrington "'^ ' 

James M. Burns, Williams College Visgmo^ 
Lincoln Cain, Esq., Pittsfield 

Robert T. Capeless, General Electric Company, Pittsfield 

John E. Coughlin, Painters' Union No. 94, Pittsfield b[o'Lx.ri 

Winthrop Murray Crane,' 3rd, Crane & Co., Inc., Dalton ^ biBvicH 

John F. Downing, Berkshire Hills Conference, Pittsfield -'^^-^ •j'^ nfitmo'/- 

J. Howard Fr>^er, Alember, Berkshire County Council ^'rtnfivH 

W. Rankin Furey, President, Berkshire Life Insurance Company ~ ' ' 

David L. Gunn, Chairman, Executive Board, Berkshire County Branch NAACP 

S. Harley Jones, E. B. Jones Manufacturing Company, Pittsfield 

Henry Kullas, Manager, Berkshire Joint-Board, Textile Workers Union of 

America '"^ -^ -^^ GiuoA ^.<H:L 

Albert L. Litano, Member, Berkshire County Council 'doorbP 
Hans K. Alaeder, Director, The Stockbridge School, Interlaken '^^''^ •^"^^'^ 
Feland Arthur Nevers, D.D.S., Pittsfield ' ^^"^^^ ^^^l 

George A. Newman, Esq. ''^'^^'}^^\ ^^'"l'"^^ nikrjlnU. . 

William J. Nolan, Vice-President, Sprague Electric Cc^mpa^fy-^^ ^ :'r"':0 



18 



Arthur Burnliam Phinney, Unitarian Church, Pittsfield 
Miss L. Alberta Pierce, Berkshire County Branch, NAACP 
Mrs. Henry N. Rollison, Berkshire County Branch, NAACP 
Jay C. Rosenfeld, Temple Anshe Amonim, Pittsfield 
James M. Rosenthal, Esq., Pittsfield 

Dr. Edward J. Russell, Superintendent of Schools, Pittsfield 
Paul A. Tamburello, Esq., Pittsfield 

Frank T. Walker, 2nd Vice-President, New England Regional Conference 
NAACP 

LaFayette W. Walker, Legislative Representative for the Massachusetts 
Branches of NAACP 

Boston 

Carl J. Gilbert, Chuirman, Chairman of the Board, The Gillette Company 
Norman H. Abbott, Director, Boston University Placement Service 
Julius Bernstein, Executive Secretary, Mass. Labor Committee for Human 
Rights 

Frederic C. Church, Boit, Dalton & Qiurch 

John V. Connolly, Business Manager, Boston Photo Engravers' Union No. 3 
Hubert L. Connor, Director of Apprenticeship, Division of Apprentice Train- 
ing, Department of Labor & Industries 
Norris G. Davis, Davis Funeral Home 

John E. Deady, Secretary-Treasurer, Building & Construction Trades Council 
of the Metropolitan District 

William H. Eastman, Personnel Director, John Hancock Mutual Life Insur- 
ance Company 

Stephen W. Fardy, Executive Secretary, Boston Allied Printing Trades Council 
Harold D. Hodgkinson, Chairman of the Board, Filene's 
Ernest A. Johnson, Commissioner, Department of Labor & Industries 
Kenneth J. Kelley, Secretary-Treasurer & Legislative Agent, Mass. Federation 
of Labor 

Stephen E. McCloskey, Secretary-Treasurer, Legislative Agent, Metropolitan 

Boston Central Labor Union, AFL-CIO 
Albert C. Palmer, New England Telephone & Telegraph Company 
Thomas A. Pappas, President, C. Pappas Company, Inc. 

Leonard T. Peters, Executive Vice-President & General Manager, Peters Em- 
ployment Service, Inc. 
Sidney R. Rabb, Chairman of the Board, Stop & Shop, Inc. 
Paul T. Rothwell, President, Bay State Milling Company 

Arthur Seserman, Executive Secretary, Boston Branch, National Metal Trades 
Association 

F. Frank Vorenberg, President, Gilchrist Company 

Leslie E. Woods, Director of Industrial Relations, Raytheon Manufacturing 
Company 

Cape Cod 

Dr. Lewis Paul Todd, Chairman, Editor, "Social Education" 

Harold L. Baker, Chief of Police, Falmouth 

Harvard H. Broadbent, Superintendent of Schools, Hyannis 

Norman H. Cook, Executive Secretary, Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce, 

Hyannis 
Manuel Corey, Jr., Falmouth 

Charles A. Coyle, Executive Secretary, Massachusetts Hotel Association 
The Very Rev. Leonard J. Daley, Pastor, St. Francis Xavier Church, Hyannis 
Miss Eugenia Fortes, Hyannis 

Mrs. Roma M. Freeman, Physical Education & Science Teacher, Barnstable 
Schools 

Mrs. Walter H. Garrison, Hyannis 
Jack Gravier, Falmouth 

Malcolm R. Hobbs, Publisher of "The Cape Codder" 

George A. Hough, Jr., Editor and Publisher, "The Falmouth Enterprise" 



19 



Joseph Indio, Editor, "The Nantucket Inquirer" 
Allan F. Jones, Contractor 

James H. Kennedy. Manager, Mass. Division of Employment Security, Hyannis 

John C. Linehan, Principal, Junior High School, Hyannis 

Mrs. Anne Livingstone, Hyannis Woman's Club 

Thomas F. McKeon. Store Manager. McLellan Stores, Hyannis 

Harr>' S. Merson. Superintendent of Schools. Falmouth 

Ben Morton, Secretary, Chamber of Commerce, Martha's Vineyard 

Norman Nunes, Supervisor, Hood Milk Company 

Mrs. Lillian Olsen. Treasurer. Hyannis Cooperative Bank 

Thomas Roderick, Teen-Age group coordinator, Hyannis 

Rev. Carl Fearing Schultz, D.D.. The Federated Church of Hyannis 

Mrs. Ruth Schuman, Attorney. Hyannis 

Miss Mar>- G. Shea, The Dennis-Yarmouth Register 

Frank Simmons, Sr., Builder, East Falmouth 

Warren Sperl, Assistant Treasurer, Cape & Vineyard Electric Company 
Harold Spivack. Rabbi, Cape Cod Synagogue, Hyannis 
Richard F. Tobin, Public Relations, Coonamesset Inn, Falmouth 
Mrs. Minna Witt, Proprietor, Admiral Hotel, Hyannis 

Xezv Bedford 

Fred W. Steele, Chairman, Textile Engineer 

Miss Laurinda Andrade. Faculty. New Bedford High School 

Samuel Bamet, Special Justice. Third District Court. Bristol County 

Henr>' A. Bartkiewicz, E^q., New Bedford 

Walter W. Bonner, New Bedford High School 

George E. Carignan. President. Greater New Bedford CIO Industrial Union 
Council 

Joaquim A. Custodio, Traffic Manager, Modern Venetian Blinds, New Bedford 

Joseph Dawson, President, Knowles Loom Reed Works 

Joseph A. DeSousa, Director of Adult Education, New Bedford Schools 

Duncan Dottin. Social Worker 

Joseph P. Duchaine, Industrialist. New Bedford 

Alfred J. Gomes. Esq.. New Bedford 

The Rev. Edward A. Hailes, Union Baptist Church, New Bedford 
Miss Doris E. Hopkins, Executive Director, YWCA 
Harold Hurwitz, Esq.. New Bedford 

Miss Ruth B. McFadden, Superintendent of Schools, New Bedford 

George F. McGovern. Works Manager, Revere Copper & Brass, Inc. 

Miss Helen Mclntyre, Veterans' Employment Representative, Division of Em- 

plovTnent Securitv- 
Fermino J. Spencer, New Bedford School Department 

Mrs. Dorothy D. Stahre, Principal, Charles S. Ashley School, New Bedford 
Joseph A. Sylvia. Jr., Register of Deeds, Bristol County- 
The Hon. August C. Taveira 
Dr. Xenophon Thomas, NAACP 

Philip F. Tripp, Executive Director, New Bedford Housing Authority 
John Marcus Williams, Proprietor, Isabella's Beautv' Salon 
Mrs. Frances S. Winsper, Vice Chairman, New Bedford Council of Social 
Agencies 

Donald Zeman, Esq., New Bedford 

Mrs. Anthony Zielinsky, Vice President, Polish National Alliance; Trustee, 
Polish-American Veterans Auxiliars- 

North Shore 

Henr\' Kozlowski, Chairman, Treasurer, Jackson & Phillips, Inc., Printers 
Chester R, Arnold. Principal, Salem High School 
Anthony Athanas, President, Hawthorne Restaurants, Inc., Lynn 
Mrs. Mar>- Finn Berlyn, Supervisor, Adult Civic Education, Lynn Public 
Schools, President, Mass. Association Teachers of Adults 



20 



Abraham Caswell, Treasurer, Caswell-Doucette Shoe CompanfonI flqs^.ol, 
Thomas D. Chatfield, President. Essex Trust Company .T .tx npnA, 

Thomas J. Curtin, Director of Civic Education, Massachusetts Department of 
Education 

Mrs. Solomon M. Feldman, Jewish Community Federation of Greater Lynn 
Abraham Glovsky, Esq., B'nai B'rith 

Mrs. Charles F. Haywood, Chief Librarian, Lynn Public Library 
Dr. Francis L. Keane, School Adjustment Counselor, Lynn Public Schools 
John M. Lilly, General Secretary, YMCA, Lynn ,^^>nuVi n£rn r 

Lawrence G. AlcGinn, Superintendent of Schools, Lynn ^ rrrHf T 
Mrs. Marcia L. Memmott, Director, Women's Division, Massachusetts De- 
partment of Commerce 
Chester C. Nemphos, Legislative Agent and Member, Civil Rights Committee 

Local 201, lUE-CIO 
Mrs. William H. Nesbit, Lynn Daily Item 

Norman J. Randell, Manager, Plant Community Relations, General Electric Co. 
Theodore Regnante, Esq., Chairman, Board of Trustees, Lynn Public Library 
Armand J. St. Laurent, Funeral Director, Lynn 

Dr. William D. Washington, Member, North Shore Council, LynM' .?iM 
William A. Welch, Superintendent of Schools, Peabody 

Springfield .^h^l^ .W 
Charles V. Ryan, Esq., Chairman 

Mrs. Richard B. Anderson, Community Council, Public Affairs Committee 

Archie Burack, Treasurer and General Manager, Industrial Buildings Corp. 

Miss Clarace E. Gait, Head Psychiatric Social Worker, Child Guidance Clinic 
>!■ of Springfield, Inc. i^jkoiO .Hvmicz-'i ,n; 

George C. Gordon, NAACP 
V: Miss Alice L. Halligan, Director of Pupil Service and Adult Education, Spring- 
field Public Schools 

Robert W. Hutton, Executive Secretary, Employers' Association of Western 
Massachusetts 

Dr. Howard P. Kennedy ^ • 

Raymond T. King, Esq., Ely, King, Kingsbury & Corcoran 
A. Benjamin Mapp, Executive Director, Urban League of Springfield, Inc. 
Roger L. Putnam, Chairman, Package Machinery Company, East Longmeadow 
Mrs. Roger L. Putnam, President, Catholic Scholarships for Negroes, Inc. 
Frederick B. Robinson, Director, Museum of Fine Arts, Springfield 
James J. Shea, President, Milton Bradley Company, Springfield 
:; Hans B. C. Spieg^:!, Comm.unity Tensions Center, Springfield College 
Mrs. Malcolm C. Webber, Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith 
Charles ViVenzio, Local 202, lUE-CIO - ^n^^i 

^^^"^ Worcester 

Andrew B. Holmstrom, Chairman. Vice President, Norton Company 
Mrs. Laurence J. Bouchard, Massachusetts Parent-Teacher Association 
Lyscom A. Bruce, Executive Secretary, Greater Worcester Community Chest 
and Council 

Rev. Hubert C. Callaghan, S.J., Director, Institute of Industrial Relations, 

College of the Holy Cross 
Miss S. Virginia Carrier, Executive Director, YWCA ; 
Daniel J. Casale, Supervising Manager, Division of Employment Security 
Frederic H. Case, Jr., Assistant Director Public Relations, United States Steel 

Corporation 

Thomas E. Christensen, Worcester Public Schools 

Gardener G. DeMallie, President, Family Service Organizatiori:, 0.1 : . li 
Dr. Leo T. Doherty, Superintendent of Schools A ,51 i^^fi^riO 

Donald S. Donnelly, Mass. Division of Employment SecurityrllA ^nodinA 
j Samuel J. Donnelly, A. F. of L., Worcester vjnM .aiM 

Mrs. Katharine F. Erksine, YWCA Board, Worcester ,aicK>/bg 



Mrs. Daniel Farber, Interracial Council of Worcester 

Judge Joseph Goldberg, Chairman, Worcester Area Committee, Anti-Defama- 
tion League of B'nai B'rith 

Dr. Ralph L. Holland, Executive Secretar^^ Greater Worcester Area Council 
of Churches ^j^l^g v.omin b^itr 

Loren K. Hutchinson, Wyman-Gordon Company ' - . , , 

Dr. Howard B. Jefferson, President, Clark University 

Rabbi Joseph Klein, Temple Emanuel 

Miss Anna ]Mays, Educational Chairman for New England Regional Confer- 
ence, NAACP 

Philip M. Morgan, President, Morgan Construction Company 
Mrs. John C. Nicholson, Executive Director, Camp Fire Girls, Inc. 
Harry W, Oswell, Vice President, New England Regional Conference, NAACP 
Branches 

Mrs. Arthur G. Perry, Worcester Council of Mothers' Clubs 
Edson D. Phelps, Second Vice President, State !^Iutual Life Assurance Com- 
pany of America 

Mrs. Thomas L. Porter, Second Vice President, Massachusetts State Federa- 
tion of Women's Clubs '^rmn L.r.ji r. rjii iq 
Miss Julia E. Robinson, Worcester Board of Public Welfare"" ' f'^'f'^ "r'^ f' 
Mrs. Dorothy L. Salter, President, Salter Secretarial School 
Paul W. Spaulding, President, John C. Maclnnes Company 
Mrs. George E. Spence, Scholarship Chairman, YWCA (a) 
Roy H. Stevens, Sub-Area Director, United Steelworkers , of Americaj\'\ 
Carl E. Wahlstrom, Judge of Probate Court j'ldtjq h'iinfoblcii -<nsnm ,b9vIo7 
Dr. Joseph Weinreb, Youth Guidance Center ^ - . r. Tf 
Mrs. Richard B. Wolf, President, League of Women Voters of Worcester 



ito!^ \<\ APPENDIX "~ v.AnAx'io 

REPORT OF THE GOVERNOR'S CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

'-^ Upon the invitation of Governor Furcolo, a healthy heterogenous cross-section of 
'fliscussants — some 350 realtors, bankers, lawj-ers, clergs-men, trades union leaders, 
social scientists, teachers, case workers, and other interested citizens — met June 4, 
1958, at Boston College Law School for a day-long examination of ways to assure 
equality of opportunity in employment and housing. Eleven seminars, aflPording every 
participant full opportunity for frank discussion followed the excellent opening presen- 
tations by Conference Chairman John L. Saltonstall, Jr., Rev. Father Robert F. 
Drinan, Dr. E. Robert Livernash, Mrs. Mildred H. Mahoney, and Charles P. Curtis, 

Jt. ■•■ ■ 

There follows a repOTt of the deliberations, and of the consensus of the findings 
and recommendations of the participants in that Conference: 'J '^^^''^'^ 

fifii £ t£ff} inomUsvm -^niizBl bj HOUSING^ vllr.uau ax sonabreai £ isdi 
4— Findings 

Although the Seminar sessions naturally varied somewhat in content, range, and 
tt;ne of discussion, there were consensuses on the following points : 

1 — There is still today in Massachusetts considerable racial, religious, and ethnic 
group segregation in housing. In a nation that likes to view itself as a democratic 
melting-pot, strict housing segregation between various groups is at least worthy of 
careful attention. Now that the state's employment laws are effectively opening up 
job opportunities to minority group members, housing appears to be the most im- 
mediate concern of these groups. The seminars agreed that housing segregation does 
exist in Alassachusetts, but a number of important qualifications were made to this 
situation. 

(a) The present housing laws in the state have helped to some degree. The 
success of present state laws on housing, while limited, provides encouragement that 
law can affect housing segregation — even though it is not the only method available. 



12 



The need for further strengthening of these laws was emphasized: MCAD officials 
reported, for instance, that the "private housing publicly-assisted" law currently on 
the books had affected only a few dwellings in the state so far. 

(b) Some of the present segregation is voluntary. Some people who live in 
areas inhabited almost solely by members of their own group like it that way. But 
this feeling of "in-group clannishness" is particularly strong with the first generation 
migrants (whether foreign or southern), much weaker with the assimilated younger 
generations. As the economic opportunities improve for minorities, the younger 
members of these groups seek housing they can afford and usually such better hous- 
ing is not available in their ethnic group ghetto. 

(c) Some of the present segregation is due to ignorance of the laws and of 
opportunities on tJie part of those fore ef idly segregated. In spite of the energetic 
efforts of the MCAD, the discussants felt that there still remains wide-spread ignor- 
ance of the housing laws which exist now. Present and future laws against housing 
discrimination must be made known to all citizens in order to insure its effectiveness. 

(d) Some of this segregation is due to the over-all scarcity of housing for 
everybody. In many metropolitan areas (particularly Boston), obsolete assessment 
practices and uneven abatement procedures together with unsound municipal financing 
have resulted in exorbitant tax rates. These factors have made residential housing 
for all income brackets scarce in these areas. Qearly, no new housing for anyone 
means no expanded housing for minority groups. 

(e) Some of the present housing segregation is due to public housing projects 
being placed in already firmly entrenched ghettoes. Though no discrimination is in- 
volved, racially integrated public housing has not become a reality in such Boston 
Housing Authority projects as Camden Street and Lenox Street (100% of each is 
all Negro) because they were placed deep in the heart of Negro ghettoes and white 
families have so far refused to move into them. 

2 — Many — perhaps most — of these segregated patterns of housing in Massachu- 
setts, however, are a result of explicit discrimination not covered by present state laws. 
Though there are qualifications to be placed on the state's housing segregation, the 
discussants had little doubt that direct discrimination is an important contributor to 
the situation. A number of facets to this complex phenomenon were brought out in 
the meetings. 

(a) Some of this discrimination in housing is a direct result of bigotry. One 
of the explanations often cited to account for housing discrimination is bigotry and 
prejudice on the part of majority group members. Indeed, public opinion polls have 
indicated that Americans who are most opposed to interracial neighborhoods tend to 
be generally more prejudiced against minority groups than other individuals. But 
bigotry is only one among many factors, the discussants pointed out. Housing dis- 
crimination is too complex to be merely the result of a single sovereign cause. 

(b) Some of this housing discrimination is a result of deep (though unjusti- 
fied) fears of majority group property owners. Realtors at the seminars pointed out 
that a residence is usually the most expensive and lasting investment that a family 
ever makes. Such a profound emotional and economic investment makes it easy for 
fear-producing myths and rumors to be believed : "property values always tumble 
downward immediately after a Negro moves into a neighborhood;" "Negroes (or 
Jews, or Irish, or Italians, etc.) never repair and maintain their residences after they 
move in ;" and "once a Negro (or Jew, or Irishman, or Italian) moves into a neigh- 
borhood, there is an immediate and encircling invasion of them," etc. Based largely 
on ignorance, such fears often keep an otherwise tolerant and open-minded property 
owner from selling to some minority group member. Our best evidence available at 
this time shows that these widely-believed ideas are not true. A thorough and in- 
telligent dissemination of the true and reassuring facts would seem obviously called 
for in any campaign to lessen housing discrimination. 

(c) Some of this housing discrimination results from the fact that the present 
state laws encompass only a narrow range of housing. With the success of anti- 
discrimination laws in housing and employment in this and other states in mind, the 
conference participants had little doubt that enforced laws can play an important role 



23 



in reducing discrimination in housing — especially when accompanied with an inten- 
sive educational program. Based on this belief and noting the restricted types of hous- 
ing now covered by Massachusetts civil rights legislation, most of the seminar dis- 
cussions concluded that a broadening of the present laws on housing would help re- 
duce the amount of housing discrimination currently practiced. And such laws would 
take the person dealing in real estate "off the hook" just as the employment dis- 
crimination laws took the employer "off the hook." That is, backed by state law, 
real estate dealers could open up their market in a non-discriminatory manner without 
bearing the direct brunt of any potential community resistance. 

(d) Some of this hoiising discrimination results from an inability of minority 
groups to obtain financing and insurance. A number of discussants felt that many 
minority group members were prevented from buying or building residences outside 
of their present ghettoes chiefly because of their inability to secure through normal 
channels the necessary financing and insurance. 

(e) Some of this housing discrimination results from the lack of communica- 
tion between those interested in this problem. For the first time, the Conference pro- 
vided a chance for clear communication between many groups of people interested in 
housing: — realtors, bankers, MCAD officials, minority group leaders, etc. The 
success of this getting together and the achievement of a common understanding of 
problems suggested strongly to the participants that the lack of such easy communi- 
cation has in the past contributed to discrimination in housing in this state. 

3 — The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination offers a ready and 
proven vehicle for further advances — educational, legal, and research in the area of 
housing. The AICAD, all agreed, has achieved a remarkable record of efficient ad- 
ministering of state efforts in the employment and housing fields. The further efforts 
needed in the housing realm should be channelled and directed by an expanded 
MCAD. These efforts should encompass research and fact-finding approaches, as 
well as educational and legal procedures. 
B — Recommendations 

From these basic points of agreement a logical progression of specific recommenda- 
tions were made at the Conference that were aimed squarely at combatting housing 
discrimination in Massachusetts. These proposals took form under two general heads 
— (1) educational and research proposals and (2) legal proposals. 

1 — Educational and Research Proposals 

The MCAD must widely expand its activities in the fields of education and re- 
search in order to accomplish the following objectives: 

(a) Minorities must be thoroughly acquainted zmth their housings rights and 
property owners must be made aware of their obligations to avoid discrimination in 
housing. 

(b) Local panels of interested people should be organised on a permanent basis 
to insure easy communication among such groups as realtors, bankers, insurance exec- 
utives, MCAD officials, and minority groups leaders. 

(c) Widely-publicized campaigns for open occupancy should be carried on to 
acquaint the state's citizens with the official policies on housing (a suggested name 
for such a campaign: DOOR — Democratic Open Occupancy Regulatiotis). 

(d) Carefully prepared, state sanctioned literature should be developed and 
mMde readily available to realtors, etc., that would present in simple and clear lan- 
guage the facts of housing and of housing discrimijtation (zvith particular attention 
being paid to the myths and rumors that persist about minority housing). 

(e) A full-time, thoroughly competent social scientist (with a Ph.D. or its 
equivalent in training) should be hired by the MCAD to head up a research program 
which would investigate such questions as how much housing segregation exists now 
in Massachusetts, how much of this segregation can be reasonably attributed to dis- 
crimination, and what are the best methods for relieving the unjustified fears of 
property owners. 

2 — Legal Proposals 

(a) The MCAD should be given the authority to enter into the decisions re- 
garding projected locations of new public housing projects. This proposal is aimed 



24 



at preventing the placement of new renewal projects deep in the center of ghettoes 
in such a way as to make racial or religious or ethnic group integration virtually 
impossible. 

(b) Legislation should be sought to prohibit discrimination in the granting of 
bank loans and in the writing of real estate insurance. 

(c) It is the majority recommendation that legislation be sought to prohibit 
discrimination in private housing. 

II. EMPLOYMENT 

. I— findings 

It was the consensus that the present law against employment discrimination is 
entirely adequate and no new legislation is called for at present. Nevertheless, there 
was a strong feeling that despite the present law, discrimination continues to exist in 
some parts of the employment field, e.g., banking, utilities, insurance, and in appren- 
tice training. 

B — Recommendations 

1 — The MCAD should expand its research and educational program in order to : 

(a) Investigate the continued existence of pockets of discrimination. 

(b) Prepare and disseminate materials which may assist school personnel and 
others in further acquainting the public, including children of minority groups and 
their parents of educational and employment opportunities protected by existing 
statutes. 

2 — Regional or local conferences on Civil Rights and Civil Duties in Employment, 
similar in pattern and intent to the Governor's Conference of June 4, 1958, should 
be held throughout the Commonwealth, and the MCAD should initiate and develop 
such conferences. 

3 — The Executive Department of the state government should encourage the State 
Department of Education and the state units of the National Vocational Guidance 
Association to suggest to the vocational guidance and social studies personnel of local 
school systems the desirability of intensifying their relationships with representatives 
of industry, labor, the MCAD and other pertinent state agencies, and appropriate 
youth-serving community agencies for the purpose of enriching their mutual servicing 
of young people relative to training for employment and job placement. 

A — The Executive Department of the state government should recommend to local 
governmental leaders that they encourage the setting up of apprenticeship committees 
in their cities and towns in co-operation with the Apprenticeship Training Division 
of the State Department of Labor and Industries. 

5 — Legislation should be introduced to require that all prime and sub-contracts let 
by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts should include provisions for the formal 
training of apprentices in all critical occupations as so defined by the Secretary of 
Labor without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. The Federal govern- 
ment should be urged to adopt a similar provision. 

6 — State legislation should be considered which would require that out-of-state 
recipients of Massachusetts government contracts not discriminate against any em- 
ployee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, or national origin 
in connection with their work on such contracts. 

III. MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST 
DISCRIMINATION 

There is a real need to increase the annual budget of the MCAD. Present staff 
salaries are far too low, and the work of the Commission definitely requires a quali- 
fied Research Director and funds for educational work including printing, publicity, 
and related services. 

Of the twelve states having anti-discrimination programs, Massachusetts stands 
seventh in terms of per capita expenditures by its Commission Against Discrimina- 
tion and sixth as to absolute dollar appropriations. 

It is therefore recommended that the MCAD budget be increased by a minimum 
of $50,000, per annum. 



25 



IV. FURTHER CONFERENCES 

There was general agreement that the Governor's Conference, as conceived and 
carried out, was such a success that it should be repeated. It is therefore recom- 
mended that similar statewide conferences be held in Massachusetts biennially. 

Respectfully submitted, 
REPORT COMMITTEE 
John L. Saltoxstall, Jr., Chairman 
Gerald A. Berlin Sol Kolack 

Joseph Cass Msgr. Francis J. Lally 

Dr. Thomas J. Curtin Mrs. Mildred H. Mahoney 

Charles P. Curtis, Jr. Thomas F. Pettigrew 

Bertram A. Druker Joseph Salerno 

Thomas M. Hennessey Robert E. Segal 

Joseph Kaplan Herbert E. Tucker, Jr. 



Public Document 



K 163' ' 



©Ijp OInmmnntupalltj nf HaaaarljUBPttB 

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 
FOURTEENTH 

ANNUAL REPORT 

of the 
Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination / 

December 1, 1958 - November 30, 1959 




Mildred H. Ma honey. Chairman 
WAL-.'Er. C. C\RRiNCTON, Con.missxcner 
Ben G. Shapiro, Commissioner 
Walter H. Nolan, 'Executive Secretary 

41 Tremont Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Publication of this Document Approved by Bernard Solomon, State Purchasing Agent 
4M-3-60-927389 Estimated Cost Per Copy: $ .115 



^fATEllBRftRYOFMASSAClHISETTS 

q©KTEKl!SoO 

STATE HOUSE, BOSTOM 
^'ASS OFFIGZAES 

INTRODUCTION 3 

SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTIVITIES 3 

FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE LAW 4 

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAW 5 

FAIR EDUCATION LAW ..." « 

HOUSING LAWS 10 

PUBLIC INFORMATION ACTIVITIES . 15 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 10 

A LIST OF CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES 20 

APPENDIX 20 




FOURTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION 
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION 

INTRODUCTION 

With Liberty and Justice for all . , . 

Not a new thought in the USA. Not an unexpressed thought. But a difficult 
thought to translate into concrete manifestations. This process of translation is at- 
tempted in many ways. Preachers preach it. Teachers teach it and even the law 
gets into the act ! 

In Massachusetts we have a wisely drawn law. It provides for enforcement and 
education. Because it is wisely drawn it has been widely accepted. The scope of 
the Commission has grown immensely since its single beginning as the Massachusetts 
Fair Employment Practice Commission in 1946. Now discrimination is outlawed in 
four fields — employment, education, public accommodations and housing ; six amend- 
ments have been passed in fourteen years strengthening and widening the application 
of the original law. This couldn't have happened against public opinion. 

Our General Court has voted these amendments giving to Massachusetts more laws 
to enforce than any other state in the union. That is a grave responsibility. It is 
also an evidence of confidence in the wisdom and fairness of the Commission, a confi- 
dence which the Commission earnestly hopes will always be maintained. 

The following report explains first in summary form and then in more detail the 
accomplishments of last year. 

The members of the Commission are deeply grateful to the many people and 
agencies tliat through their cooperation have helped so greatly. 

SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTIVITIES 

This report covers Commission activities for the period from December 1, 1958 to 
November 30, 1959. 

The Commission received and processed 301 matters invclvmg discrimination based 
on race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or an estry. 

The Commission staff contacted officials of 664 business concerns throughout the 
Commonwealth. 

The purpose of these conferences was to minimize the possibilities of violation of 
the law by offering instructions, interpretations, answers to specific questions and 
general information pertaining to the statutes; to review employment application 
forms and hiring policies and to obtain compliance with that section of the law which 
requires the posting of the summary of the law in a conspicuous place on the premises. 

Of the 664 employers conferred with, 130 were found to have unlawful inquiries on 
employment application forms. For the most part the unlawful inquiries dealt with 
the age of the applicant, however, there were two wliich made inquiry into color and 
15 intc national origin, 

546 notices of possible violation of the fair employment practice law in help-wanted 
advertisements were sent to employers and employment agencies. 

Sixteen employers requested exemption from the law. All of the exemption re- 
quests were refused for lack of sufficient evidence to warrant the granting of an 
exemption. 

The Commission annually reviews the advertising materials used by hotels and 
motels, as authorized by the Public Accommodations statute. 



4 



This year the advertising material of 1029 places of public accommodations were 
examined. In no instance was there found to be any language implying restrictions 
because of race, color or creed. 

To each hotel and motel located in the resort areas of the Commonwealth there 
was mailed an official poster prepared by the Commission which must be displayed 
in a conspicuous place on the premises. 

Staff members visited the police departments of eighty-five (85) cities and towns 
conferring with the Chiefs of Police concerning the public accommodations statutes 
and its provisions. Copies of the law as well as explanatory literature were dis- 
tributed to the police personnel. 

Conferences were held with officers of fifty-nine (59) Chambers of Commerce. 
The purpose of these conferences was to acquaint the officials with all of the civil 
rights statutes presently being administered by the Commission. Commission litera- 
ture was made available for distribution to the membership of the various Chambers. 

Five thousand copies of a specially prepared brochure on the newly enacted private 
housing law were distributed to its membership by the Massachusetts Real Estate 
Board. Hundreds of other copies were distributed by private organizations especially 
interested in the passage of this law. 

A study was made of the tenant selection policy of ten (10) Public Housing 
Authorities. This study has been made for three consecutive years on the same ten 
Housing Authorities and in another section of the report there will be demonstrated 
the degree of integration of whites and non-whites in public housing. 

The Commissioners and staff filled 116 speaking engagements and conducted or at- 
tended 251 conferences throughout the Commonwealth. In addition to this the Com- 
mission held semi-annual meetings with each of the eight Councils. 

In addition to those who filed complaints 410 individuals visited the Commission 
office to make inquiries concerning their rights and obligations under the provisions 
of the Civil Rights statutes. 

A survey of application for insurance forms issued by 300 companies licensed to do 
business in the Commonwealth was begun to determine to what extent inquiries into 
race, color, religion or national origin are made on these forms. 

FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE LAW 

Complaint 

Despite the expansion of Commission jurisdiction regarding complaints the ma- 
jority of them relate to employment situations and usually to difficulty in getting a job. 
The case illustration that follows however illustrates a less usual but equally culpable 
type of discrimination : 

On March 30, 1959 a woman filed a complaint against a restaurant chain alleging 
unlawful discrimination in employment because of her religious creed. 

The complainant had been employed as a counter-girl by respondent for two years. 

About three months prior to filing the complaint respondent had occasion to hire 
a new manager for the section in which the complainant worked as well as another 
counter-girl. 

The new employees proceeded to harass complainant, making slurring remarks 
concerning her co-religionists, shoving and tripping her while she was carrying stacks 
of dishes. 

Calling for a showdown with the manager she asked why she was being subjected 
to this treatment. According to the allegations the section manager told her that the 
reason for the treatment should have been obvious, she was Jewish. 

Complainant reported the situation to the store manager. She reminded him that 
she had talked to him on a previous occasion concerning the treatment she was getting 
from her immediate supervisor and one other employee. Not obtaining any satis- 
faction from the store manager, complainant resigned. 

Complainant applied to the Division of Employment Security for unemployment 
benefits. Her claim was denied but she was referred to the Commission. 



5 



The allegations were investigated and the facts ohtained brought to the attention 
of top management within four hours of the complaint being filed. 

Respondent sent a letter to the Division of Employment Security withdrawing its 
objection to complainant's request for unemployment benefits declaring that com- 
plainant had been forced to quit. 

In addition respondent sent termination n.otices to complainant's supervisor and the 
other employee who had created the situation. 

Complainant was offered her job back but declined. She accepted employment 
elsewhere. (XIV-17-RC). 

] fivcstigation 

Besides handling cases ordinarily based on the complaints of individuals the Com- 
mission will conduct investigations if asked to do so by a reputable agency offering 
alleged evidence of discrimination. The following investigation illustrates procedure 
in such an instance : 

On April 10, 1959 the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 
Boston Branch, and the Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston submitted a written 
request to the Commission to investigate the employment policy of the Boston Ameri- 
can League Baseball Company. A similar request was submitted by the American 
\'eterans Committee of Massachusetts, Incorporated. 

The call for an investigation was precipitated by the dropping of a Negro player, 
Elijah 'Tumpsie" Green, from the Red Sox roster just prior to the break up of 
spring training. 

On April 14, 1959, at the weekly meeting of the Commission, officials of the 
NAACP, Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston and the American Veterans Com- 
mittee presented what facts they had on the hiring policy of the Boston Red Sox. 
The Commission announced at the conclusion of the meeting that it would meet with 
officials of the Red Sox and set April 21. 1959 as the date. On April 21, 1959 the 
business manager of the Red Sox met with the members of the Commission. Both 
meetings were open to the public and were covered by the press in compliance with 
the newly enacted "open meeting law," Chapter 30A, Section 11 A of the General 
I^ws. 

The following day, April 22, 1959, the Commission made known its decision to 
investigate fully the charges against the Red Sox. 

On May 2, 1959 a tentative proposal to resolve the entire matter was outlined to 
officials of the Red Sox. 

On May 26, 1959 final agreement was reached and a signed statement from the 
general manager of the Red Sex was entered into the record. 

The agreement with the Red Sox contained the following items : 

1. The general manager or business manager will during the coming year, make 
a trip to Scottsdale, Arizona, to obtain guarantees that suitable non-segregated 
accommodations will be available for all members of the Red Sox during 
future spring training sessions. 

2. Records of Red Sox instructions to their scouts of the team's non-discrimi- 
natory policy and the activities of these scouts in scouting Negro prospects 
will continue to be made available to the Commission at its request. 

3. The Red Sox offer an equal opportunity to all to apply for employment and 
all applicants will be considered on a non-discriminatory basis, 

A little over a month later, in July, the Red Sox called up from their Minneapolis 
Class AAA farm team Elijah "Pumpsie" Green and Earl Wilson, a Negro pitcher, 
who had been released from the Armed Services during the spring training season. 
(Investigation No. 743-C). 

Age 

This year the Commission was asked to prepare a report for the Senate Subcom- 
mittee on Problems of the Aged and Aging. This Subcommittee was conducting a 
nation-wide survey. The report submitted by the MCAD appears on pages 25-32. 

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAW 

Massachusetts, as the Department of Commerce announced in its tourist brochure 
this year, is the "vacationland for all." Visitors to the Commonwealth rarely find 



() 



acconiniodations in public places of resort or ainusemciit denied to them because of 
their ethnic or religious background. The Commission carries on a continuous edu- 
cational program with these establishments. Field Representatives of the Commission 
visited newly opened places on Cape Cod this year and acquainted them with the 
Public Accommodations law. 

Typical of the types of complaints filed with the Commission are the following : 

Beauty Parlor 

A young Negro girl seeking to have her hair cut and styled as a result of an 
appointment made over the phone by her mother was refused service by the respon- 
dent beauty salon. When her mother asked the proprietor the reason for the refusal 
she was told that her daughter's hair was not the same as that of other people. In- 
vestigation by the Commission revealed that the beauty parlor had a long standing 
policy of discouraging colored customers. The shop's employees had been instructed 
to ignore Negroes who came to the salon seeking service. They would be left to sit 
and wait until they became tired and left. 

The case was conciliated on the following" terms : 

1. "That the owners of the beauty salon agree to serve all persons seeking service 
in their establishment to the best of their ability without any distinction, discrimina- 
tion or restriction based on religion, color or race. 

2. "That all personnel of the salon be instructed in reference to the provisions of 
the Public Accommodations law and instructed to comply with same; and 3) that a 
summary of the law be posted in a conspicuous place visible to the public as well as 
the salon personnel." (PVIII-12-C) . 

Barbershops 

A number of cases were filed with the Commission alleging discrimination against 
Negro customers by barbershops in various parts of the Commonwealth but most 
frequently in the Berkshire County area. 

Two of these cases involved a student and a teacher at a private secondary school. 
After an investigation of the charges the Commission's field representatives visited 
all barbershops in the town instructing them on the public accommodations law 
and requiring them to post the Commission poster. 

Privately Owned Beach 

A Negro Air Force Sergeant and his family finding a municipally owned beach 
overcrowded sought admittance to a nearby beach owned by a private individual. A 
sign at the entrance to the property announced that members of the public could 
swim and camp on the property upon the payment of a prescribed fee. The sign 
also stated "we reserve the right to refuse anyone at any time." As soon as the 
sergeant attempted to enter the premises he was met by the owner who informed him 
"we don't cater to colored, we have campers in the area and don't want colored here." 
An on-duty policeman who was supervising traffic at respondent's beach informed 
the airman that it was private property and that he would have to leave. 

During the Commission's investigation the owner raised the defense that the beach 
was private property. The investigating commissioner ruled however that a beach 
privately owned which was open to the public upon the payment of an admission and 
parking fee was a place of public accommodation within the civil rights laws of the 
Commonwealth. The owner agreed to remove the restrictive language from the sign 
and to accept the patronage of all persons without limitation because of race, color, 
or religious creed. (PVIII-8-C). 

Real Estate Agencies 

In response to an inquiry from the Commission the Attorney General ruled that a 
real estate agency is a place "which is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage 
of the general public" within the meaning of the Public Accommodations Law and 
therefore may not "refuse to ofifer its services to any person or refuse to accommo- 
date any person as a client because of his race, creed or color." 

On October 6, 1959 the Commission wrote to the Attorney General for an opinion. 
On November 24, 1959 the Attorney General replied to the Commission as follows : 

"You indicate that the Commission Against Discrimination has before it affidavits 
filed against two real estate agencies alleging discrimination because of color. One 



7 



affidavit concerns the rental of an apartment in a two-family house owned and man- 
aged by a real estate agency which manages and owns a large number of such prop- 
erties throughout the Commonwealth. Because, however, the house in question is not 
contiguous to eight other rental units controlled by the respondent it is not covered 
by the recently enacted 'fair housing law'. (C. 239 of the Acts of 1959) 

"The second affidavit was filed by the owner of a single family dwelling. He 
alleges that a real estate agency refused to show his house to prospective Negro 
buyers. 

"You further indicate that your Commission anticipates that it will continue to 
receive affidavits alleging discriminatory practices by real estate agencies regarding 
properties not covered by the housing amendment to the Fair Housing Practice Law. 
"You request, therefore, my opinion on the following question: 
'Would the Commission in accepting jurisdiction under the Public Accommoda- 
tions Law of complaints filed against real estate agencies which allege discrimi- 
nation because of religion, color, or race be abusing its discretion or acting arbi- 
trarily or capriciously or otherwise not in accordance with law?' 
"Under G. L., C. 151B, as amended, the Commission Against Discrimination is 
vested with jurisdiction of the 'Public Accommodations Law' so-called. That law is 
found in G. L., C. 272, ss. 92A and 98. 
"Section 92A reads : 

Places of Accommodation or Resort Not to Discriminate Because of Sect, Creed, 
Class, Race, Color or Nationality. 

No owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any 
place of public accommodation, resort or amusement shall, directly or indirectly, by 
himself or another, publish, issue, circulate, distribute or display, or cause to be pub- 
lished, issued, circulated, distributed or displayed, in any way, any advertisement, 
circular, folder, book, pamphlet, written, or painted or printed notice or sign, of any 
kind or description, intended to discriminate against or actually discriminating against 
persons of any religious sect, creed, class, race, color, denomination or nationality, in 
the full enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges offered 
to the general public by such places of public accommodation, resort or amusement; 
provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the mailing to 
any person of a private communication in writing, in response to his specific written 
inquiry. 

A place of public accommodation, resort or amusement within the meaning hereof 
shall be defined as and shall be deemed to include any place, whether licensed or un- 
licensed, which is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public 
and, without limiting the generality of this definition, whether or not it be (1) an 
inn, tavern, hotel, shelter, roadhouse, motel, trailer camp or resort for transient or 
permanent guests or patrons seeking housing or lodging, food, drink, entertainment, 
health, recreation or rest; (2) a carrier, conveyance or elevator for the transporta- 
tion of persons, whether operated on land, water or in the air, and the stations, termi- 
nals and facilities appurtenant thereto; (3) a gas station, garage, retail store or 
establishment, including those dispensing personal services ; (4) a restaurant, bar or 
eating place, where food, beverages, confections or their derivatives are sold for con- 
sumption on or off the premises; (5) a rest room, barber shop, beauty parlor, bath- 
house, seashore facilities or swimming pool; (6) a boardwalk or other public high- 
way; (7) an auditorium, theatre, music hall, meeting place or hall, including the 
common halls of buildings; (8) a place of public amusement, recreation, sport, exer- 
cise or entertainment; (9) a public library, museum or planetarium; or (10) a hospi- 
tal, dispensary or clinic operating for profit ; provided, however, that no place shall 
be deemed to be a place of public accommodation resort or amusement which is 
owned or operated by -a club or institution whose products or facilities or services 
are available only to its members and their guests nor by any religious, racial or 
denominational institution or organization, nor by any organization operated for 
charitable or educational purposes. 

Any person who shall violate any provision of this section, or who shall aid in 
or incite, cause or bring about, in whole or in part, such a violation shall be punished 
by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than 
thirty days or both. (1933, 117; 1953, 437, appvd. June 2, 1953; effective 90 days 
thereafter.) (Emphasis Supplied) 

"Section 98 reads : 

Religion, Color or Race Discrimination Penalized. 
! Whoever makes any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of religion, 
color or race, except for good cause applicable alike to all persons of every religion, 
color and race, relative to the admission of anv person to, or his treatment in, any 

I 



s 

place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, as defined in section ninety-two 
A of Chapter two hundred and seventy-two, or whoever aids or incites such distinc- 
tion, discrimination or restriction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than three 
hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year or both, and shall 
forfeit to any person aggrieved thereby not less than one hundred nor more than five 
hundred dollars; but such person so aggrieved shall not recover against more than 
one person by reason of any one act of distinction, discrimination or restriction. All 
persons shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facil- 
ities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, sub- 
ject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to 
all persons. This right is recognized and declared to be a civil right. 

"Although to date 24 states have enacted Public Accommodations Laws similar in 
their scope to the Massachusetts laws, inquiry and research have uncovered no decided 
court cases bearing on the issue herein posed. However, the Connecticut Commission 
on Civil Rights, on December 15, 1955, ruled that under its interpretation of the 
Connecticut Public Accommodations statute a real estate agent is covered under the 
definition of a place of public accommodation as 'an establishment which caters or 
offers its services or facilities or goods to the general public' within the meaning of 
that law. 

"It is significant that in the four years that have elapsed since the promulgation 
of the Connecticut ruling there has been no challenge to it in that State. 

"Obviously, a real estate agency is a ' . . . place which is open to and accepts or 
solicits the patronage of the general public . . . ', and it may well be that a real estate 
agency is an 'establishment' in the business of 'dispensing personal services'. Finally, 
a real estate agency does not come within the clearly defined exceptions of a private 
club or a religious, racial, denominational, charitable or educational use set out in the 
Massachusetts statute. 

"In view of the wording of our Public Accommodations statute, both standing 
alone and in the context of the broad and long-standing public policy established by 
the Mass. General Court to prohibit racial, religious and ethnic national discrimina- 
tion, it would seem, and I so rule, that it is a violation for a real estate agency to 
refuse to offer its services to any person or to refuse to accommodate any person as 
a client because of his race, creed or color." 

FAIR EDUCATION LAW 

The educational institutions of Massachusetts, especially those engaged in academic 
and technical training at the secondary school level and beyond, are already begin- 
ning to feel the pressure from the rising tide of applicants for admission. In spite 
of added requirements of standard tests and increased tuition costs, the number of 
those seeking admission is far in excess of available accommodations both in class 
rooms and dormitories. Consequently there are thousands of disappointed students 
and parents as the process of selection becomes increasingly more difficult. Choices 
must be made in admission offices from large numbers of candidates of seemingly 
equal ability and promise. 

The MCAD has continued its study of the procedures in the admission offices of 
institutions in the State. A review of the catalogues and admission blanks as well 
as "follow-up letters" indicates that the schools have eliminated all of the questions 
which the Commission has ruled were seeking discriminatory information. Although 
some schools were reluctant to forego the request for photographs, this ruling was 
accepted by all institutions during the past year. Two colleges which were found 
to be "using up" a supply of old application blanks agreed to cross out the photograph 
request until new blanks could be printed. A large number of institutions have 
cleared their changes in blanks with the Commission, 

When ruling that the request for a photograph constituted a possible written in- 
quiry into race, religion, color, or ethnic origin of an applicant, the Commission 
asked for and received the full cooperation of all schools in the State. Moreover, 
the Commission agreed, after a suitable trial, to review with any schools their ex- 
periences in doing without photographs while making admission selections. This 
may well be done in another year. Meanwhile it has been interesting to receive re- 
ports from admission offices that all were relying more and more on personal inter- 
views and scores in entrance examinations, and that they were using other methods 
to aid in recall and identification. One Director of Admissions laughingly admitted 



9 



that he had been told that the Freshman Class this year, without recourse to photo- 
graphs, was the best-looking one in many years ! 

Only two petitions alleging discrimination under the Fair Educational Practices 
Act have been brought to the attention of the Commission. In neither of these was 
there found just cause for a complaint. Several students who experienced admission 
difficulties have come to our office for advice and help. We have investigated these 
cases and have offered suggestions for placement, since we have kept in touch with 
the enrollment figures of various institutions. An analysis of enrollments in schools 
and colleges in Alassachusetts indicates that no school is closing its doors to appli- 
cants from minority groups. It is the belief of the Commission that no worthy stu- 
dent will be denied admission in this State because of his race, religion, color or 
ethnic origin. 

Societies and Fraternities 

From time to time the attention of the Commission has been called to the practices 
of certain national Greek letter fraternities in making discrimination on racial or 
religious grounds. Several colleges, including the State University, have taken official 
steps to prevent the fostering of a fraternity whose charter was bound by a tie-in 
with the national body which would require such discrimination in the selection of 
members. The Commission approves of such official action. In several cases the stu- 
dents themselves have taken the initiative and withdrawn from national affiliation to 
form local chapters which were at once free from any discriminatory requirements. 

In some colleges, such as Amherst and Williams, membership in a fraternity is 
offered to every student on campus at least by the end of his second year. It is 
gratifying to record that in such institutions we have found that race, religion or 
color do not prevent a student from being admitted into fraternal friendships. In 
other colleges membership may be available to a fraction of the total enrollment and 
in such colleges selection may become of social importance. The Commission will 
continue to encourage democratic practices in all of the institutions of the State with 
the objective of fair practices in fraternity elections. 

The Commission was asked to investigate one of the city high schools in the Greater 
Boston area where it was charged that societies were operating which were discrimi- 
nating in membership on religious grounds. In the instance called to our attention it 
was found that the societies were open to membership to any student who had the 
required academic standing, under by-laws and constitutions approved by the school 
authorities. However, one of the four societies investigated had become filled with 
girls who were all of the same religious faith — this by usage and not by require- 
ment. The authorities in this high school have taken steps to encourage the abandon- 
ment of the practice and are leaving the matter in the hands of the teacher advisers 
and student members for a year to avoid a fiat if possible. So-called secret or Greek 
letter societies which once flourished in many Massachusetts high schools are not 
prohibited by law. Each local community through its School Committee makes its 
own decision. It was found that pretty generally school authorities have banned such 
secret societies and they do not exist with any official recognition, cannot meet in 
school buildings and have no teacher supervision. 

Colored Teachers in Training 

The Commission was called to investigate three public school systems where it was 
charged that applicants for teaching positions were being discriminated against on 
account of race or color. In the three systems which we investigated it was found 
that there was a willingness to hire colored teachers when they have sufficiently high 
rating in the national Teachers' Examinations or can show other suitable qualifica- 
tions in a competitive field. Teachers of Jewish faith appear to be freely hired in 
public school systems without reference to or concern for their religious affiliations. 
The apparent lack of a sufficient number of well-qualified colored teachers caused us 
to turn to the training schools in the state. 

It was found that the ten colleges for teachers had non-discriminatory policies for 
admission. They are taking a larger percentage of the colored students who make 
application for admission than from any other group. The colored graduates are 
quickly placed although some of these graduates are going to teach in other states. 
The enrollment figures of the Teachers Colleges were studied with a view to finding 



10 



out if there is any change in the number of colored students who have applied for 
and been admitted into membership. 

There has been a slight increase in the number of colored students attending these 
ten colleges according to fall enrollment figures. Out of 2941 new enrollments this 
year, 54 were colored or 1.9%. In 1957-58 the figure was 1.7%. The number of 
colored students applying for admission was about the same in both years but the 
total number of applicants was considerably more this year than in 1957-58. Figures 
on the total number applying for admission were not entirely reliable since many 
applicants are not available for interviews and the admission offices employed no way 
of knowing the color of applicants until they were finally admitted. Other Schools 
of Education such as those at Boston and Harvard Universities have approved poli- 
cies of admission under the FEPA. These schools train teachers for secondary school 
teaching and beyond. Here, again, the number of colored students enrolled in train- 
ing programs is less than 2% of the total enrollments. 

HOUSING LAWS 

Private Hoiishig 

Massachusetts continues to make steady progress towards the total elimination of 
discrimination in employment. Yet many of the beneficiaries of the Fair Employment 
Practice Law are constantly frustrated in their attempts to use their increased earn- 
ings to secure decent shelter for themselves and their families beyond the confines of 
all Negro neighborhoods. As the United States Commission on Civil Rights recently 
pointed out, housing is the one commodity on the American market that is not freely 
available on equal terms to everyone who can afford to pay for it. It has been esti- 
mated that of all new housing built since the beginning of the post war boom less 
than one percent of it has been available to Negroes with most of that one percent 
found in the South in segregated developments. 

The MCAD has been powerless in the past to grant relief to those citizens who 
have complained to it of discriminatory practices in the field of private housing. Its 
enforcement jurisdiction was limited to public and publicly assisted housing accommo- 
dations. When, in 1950, the Commission was authorized to enforce the anti-segrega- 
tion provisions of the public housing law, it encountered a pattern of almost total 
segregation in public housing units in the Commonwealth. Today there is no such 
development from which Negroes are barred. It is to be hoped that a similar pattern 
of change in private housing developments may be reported in our subsequent annual 
reports as a result of the new private housing law passed this year. 

Chapter 239 of the Acts of 1959 makes it an imfair housing practice for "the 
owner, lessee, sublessee, assignee or managing agent of publicly assisted or multiple 
dwelling, or contiguously located housing accommodations or other person having the 
right of ownership or possession or right to rent or lease such accommodations : 

"(a) to refuse to rent or lease or otherwise to deny to or withhold from any per- 
son or group of persons such accommodations because of the race, color, 
creed or national origin of such person or persons; 

" (b) to discriminate against any person because of his race, creed, color, or national 
origin in the terms, conditions or privileges of such accommodations or in the 
furnishing of facilities or services in connection therewith; or 

"(c) to cause to be made any written or oral inquiry or record concerning the 
race, creed, color or national origin of a person seeking to rent or lease any 
such accommodation." 

A multiple dwelling is defined as "a dwelling which is usually occupied for perma- 
nent residence purposes and which is either rented, leased, let, or hired out, to be 
occupied as the residence or home of three or more families living independently of 
each other." 

Contiguously located housing is defined as — 

"(1) housing which is offered for sale, lease, or rental by a person who owns or 
at any time has owned, or who controls or at any time has controlled, the 
sale of ten or more housing accommodations located on land that is contig- 
uous (exclusive of public streets), and which housing is located on such 
land, or 

"(2) housing which is oflfered for sale, lease or rental and which at anytime was 
one of ten or more lots of a tract whose plan had been submitted to a plan- 
ning board as required by THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW ..." 



11 



Appearing at a public hearing before the joint committee on Mercantile Affairs of 
the General Court the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, Edward J. Mc- 
Cormack, Jr., delivered the following statement in support of H. 1209 which was 
signed into law by Govenor Foster Furcolo on April 22, 1959 and which became 
effective on July 21, 1959 as Chapter 239 of the Acts of 1959: 

'/Massachusetts is a state whose panoply of laws guaranteeing equal opportunity 
of its citizens irrespective of race, creed, color or national origin is surpassed by 
none and equalled by few. Certainly, it is a source of intense personal gratification 
to me to be Chief Law Officer of a jurisdiction whose statutes embody so exalted 
a public policy. 

"However, there is one — perhaps the most vital — area of living to which this 
guarantee has not yet been extended by law. I refer, of course, to private housing 
without public assistance. So long as black belts, ghettos, 'gentlemen's agreements,' 
and 'protective associations' flourish, and indeed grow, we still have our work to do. 
For these conditions are stark reminders that for numbers of our citizens a great 
deal of distance still lies between the ideal and reality of equal treatment under the 
law, 

"Now there are many ways to deal legislatively with problems of discrimination, 
but I am convinced that the most appropriate one is to continue in the tradition of 
steady, restrained and eminently reasonable statutory extension of civil rights laws 
that has obtained in Massachusetts since the passage of the F.E.P.C. Act in 1946. 
In this way, public acceptance militates to combine with effective administration to 
produce workable law. This is law-making in the most responsible sense of the term. 

"Of the three bills filed this year to outlaw discrimination in private housing with- 
out public assistance, I feel that the one which most satisfies this formulation is 
H. 1209. H. 1209 is in no sense a radical departure from existing law; rather it 
embodies a modest but logically inexorable extension of existing law. And it does 
it in a fashion which makes the legislative intent unambiguous. 

"H. 1209 basically deals with commercial housing on a very broad basis and thereby 
avoids most of the psychological and, I feel, all of the constitutional problems that 
conceivably arise where non-commercial single units are involved. 

"In respect to the constitutional problem, if any, I am satisfied that there is abun- 
dant legal precedent to show that the police and welfare considerations implicit in H. 
1209 justify such restrictions as the bill may impose on freedom of contract. 

"In light of these conclusions, I respectfully suggest that the public policy of this 
Commonwealth and the needs of its citizens will be greatly served by your favorable 
recommendation of H. 1209." 

The new law covers an important segment of the private housing market in Massa- 
chusetts. It applies to all homes in housing developments of ten or more units built 
since 1954. It applies not only to the sale of the home by the original developer but 
to its sale by all subsequent owners. All apartment houses in the Commonwealth 
come under the law as do those three decker houses in which the owner does not 
reside. Lending institutions and real estate agents may not aid or abet the doing of 
any of the acts which the law proscribes. 

To aid the home buyer seeking housing accommodations not now covered by civil 
rights legislation, private citizens in a number of localities have organized themselves 
into Fair Housing Committees. They are working to create an open market in their 
communities where all citizens may bargain on an equal basis with whites for hous- 
ing. They have circularized good neighbor pledges of which the following is typical : 

"In a democracy it is fundamental that all have equal opportunity. This prin- 
ciple is often denied when members of minority groups are not allowed to buy 
or rent housing. The essential richness of our country rose out of the free non- 
segregated sharing of life and thought of people of varied faiths and races and 
we cherish this democratic way of life for ourselves and for our children. There- 
fore, we the undersigned residents of Newton, declare our support of a policy 
to make housing available to all people of good character without discrimination 
as to race, religion or national origin." 
In addition they have built up lists of resident owners willing to sell their homes 
on a non-discriminatory basis. They offer to aid Negroes and other minority group 
members seeking homes in their community by house hunting with them and by carry- 
ing on educational campaigns among their neighbors. 

The Commission is encouraged by the growth of these committees in Arlington, 
Brookline, Cambridge, Natick, Needham, Newton, North Wilmington, Sharon, Sud- 
bury, Wayland and Wellesley. To citizens elsewhere who a.sk what they individually 



12 



can do to help the work of anti-discrimination we commend the formation of such 
committees. 

In the four months in which the fair housing law has been in operation there have 
been heartening instances of its effectiveness of which the following are illustrations. 

1. Two secretaries, one Negro and one white, sought to share an apartment to- 
gether. The white girl filed an application and deposit with the respondent real 
estate agent who asked that her prospective roommate come to the office in person 
to fill out an application. Within twenty-four hours after the Negro girl appeared 
their applications and deposits were returned to them. The agency informed them 
that the apartment for which they applied had previously been rented by one of the 
agency's other offices. 

Investigation revealed that the agency had misrepresented the rental date. The apart- 
ment was in fact available on the date on which the girls applied and was not rented 
until two days after their applications were returned. 

The agency agreed to offer immediately a comparable apartment to the two girls 
and to instruct its staff' on the provisions of the fair housing law. (PrH-I-9-C). 

2. While the foregoing case was being investigated two Negro women applied for 
an apartment in another building managed by the above-mentioned respondent. They 
were shown an apartment by the building superintendent and referred by him to the 
real estate agency. 

Their application and deposit were accepted and they were told that they would hear 
further as to their acceptability as tenants. Two days later they called the rental 
office and were told that their application had been rejected in favor of one received 
a day after they had applied. To their inquiry as to why the later applicant was pre- 
ferred they received no answer. 

Investigation revealed that the agency regarded the credit and personal references of 
both women to be excellent. It was also shown that no other application for the 
apartment had been received. As in the preceding case they agreed to offer an apart- 
ment to the complainants. (PrH-I-lO-C) . 

3. A young man alleged that upon the owner of an apartment building learning 
he was Jewish, the rental deposit he had made on an apartment was returned and his 
application rejected. He was told by the real estate agent who had originally shown 
him the apartment that he had been told by the owner that the apartment had been 
previously rented out by the owner himself. A week later the complainant saw a 
newspaper ad offering for rent what appeared to be the same apartment. 

Upon investigation by the Commission it was clear that there was no violation of the 
law by the agent. He had in good faith processed the complainant's application and 
forwarded it to the owner. When informed that there was a right of first refusal 
outstanding on the apartment he secured another for the young man. 
The owner explained the later newspaper ad had been placed because the person who 
had the right of first refusal withdrew his application after the complainant's deposit 
had been returned. Before further investigation was undertaken by the Commission 
the owner agreed to offer the complainant his pick of three available apartments in the 
building. 

4. A week after she moved into her apartment, a light-complexioned Negro woman 
was visited by her darker-skinned daughter. Neighbors complained to the landlord 
who in turn informed the woman that he did not want his tenants receiving Negro 
guests in his building. When told that the visitor was the tenant's daughter, he in- 
formed her that he would never have rented her the apartment had he known she 
was Negro. A notice was then attached to her rent receipt informing her that her 
rent was to be raised. The efforts of the woman's parish priest to intercede with the 
landlord were unsuccessful. Several days later she was visited by the sheriff carrying 
a letter from the landlord's lawyer asking her to vacate the apartment. 

The landlord admitted to the Commission that the complainant had been a very good 
tenant. He stated that he personally did not object to her. He feared, however, that 
his tenants were upset because she had Negro visitors. 

The Commission offered to explain the law to the tenants whereupon the landlord 
discontinued eviction proceedings. A letter was sent to the Commission and to the 
complainant containing assurances that the landlord would in the future conform to 
the fair housing practice law. 



13 



Public Housing 

Studies of occupancy and the methods of tenant selection of various Public Hous- 
ing Authorities are made each year. 
This year the following Housing Authorities were studied: 

1. Boston 6. New Bedford 

2. Brockton 7. Pittsfield 

3. Cambridge 8. Plymouth 

4. Falmouth 9. Springfield 

5. Holyoke 10. Worcester 



BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 


No. c 


f Units Occupied 


No. of Non 


-White Families 








j.yj/ 


1958 


1959 


Broadway 




941 


10 


12 


14 


Camden Street 




72 


72 


72 


71 


Commonwealth 




639 


18 


18 


17 


Faneuil 




258 


2 


2 


2 


Fairmount 




202 











Archdale 




288 


8 


5 


6 


Orient Heights 




353 


4 


5 


4 


Gallivan Boulevard 




251 











Franklin Field 




504 


19 


20 


20 


South Street 




132 











Total 






3,640 




133 


1 ^4 
lot 




Federal Program 


















195/ 


1958 


1959 


Charlestown 




1,117 





3 


3 


Mission Hill 




1,019 











Lenox Street* 




306 


306 


302 


300 


Orchard Park 




745 


93 


100 


107 


South End 




498 


241 


253 


255 


Heath Street 




405 


13 


15 


12 


East Boston 




411 











Franklin Hill Avenue 




372 


14 


16 


17 


Whittier Street 




197 


180 


185 


186 


Washington and Beech Streets 


274 


4 


3 


3 


Mission Hill Extension 




567 


314 


386 


440 


Bromley Park 




690 


110 


158 


163 


Columbia Point 




1,407 


103 


137 


144 


Old Harbor Village 




989 











Old Colony 




847 


3 


2 


2 


Total 




9,844 


1,381 


1,560 


1,632 


*Lenox Street Development ha 


s one white family 


in occupancy. 





5 units unoccupied. 



BROCKTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units Occupied No. of Non-White Families 

1957 1958 1959 

283 6 6 5 

Federal Program 1957 1958 1959 

100 7 9 7 



CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units Occupied No. of Non-White Families 

1957 1958 1959 

Woodrow Wilson Court 69 3 2 2 

Jefferson Park 109 4 6 9 



14 



Lincoln W ay 60 




3 


2^ 




Roosevelt Towers 228 




9 


23 


20 


Jackson Gardens 46 




1 








Jerterson rark Extension -UU 




/ 


11 


11 


Total 712 




27 


44 


46 


Federal Program A'o. of Units 


CCHplCd 


No. of Non 


-White 


tammes 






1957 


1958 


1959 


WT 1 ■ J. T71 OOyt 

Washmgton tlnis 324 




38 


38 


3/ 


Putnam Gardens 123 




42 


43 


44 


i\ ew 1 owne v^ouri ^i^H 




Q 
o 


1A 





Corcoran 152 




4 


3 


4 


Total 893 




92 


94 


94 


FALMOUTH HOUSING 


AUTHORITY 






State Program No. of Units Occupied 


No. of Non-White 


Families 






1957 


1958 


1959 


Amvets Avenue 50 




3 


3 


A 


Mayflower 24 













Total 74 




3 


3 


4 


HOLYOKE HOUSING 


AUTHORITY 






State Program No. of Units Occupied 


No. of Non-White 


Families 






1957 


1958 


1959 


Beaudoin Village 219 




1 


2 


1 


Minnie R. Dwight Village 42 










A 

u 


Total 261 




1 


2 


\ 


Federal Program 




1957 


1958 


1959 


Jackson Parkway 219 













Lyman Terrace 167 




1 


1 


1 

J. 


Henry Toepfert Apartments 98 










1 


Total 484 




1 


1 


2 


NEW BEDFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY 






State Program No. of Units 


ccupied 


No. of Non-White 


Families 






1957 


1958 


1959 


Parkdale 100 




3 


3 


2 


Blue Meadows 150 




13 


13 


14 


Nashmont 80 













Crestview- West wood (Elderly) 75 




2 


2 




Total 405 




18 


18 


18 


Federal Program 




1957 


1958 


1959 


Bay Village 200 




119 


136 


139 


Presidential Heights 200 




3 


1 





Brickenwood 300 




24 


18 


18 


Westlawn 200 




34 


36 


41 


Total 900 




180 


191 


198 



PITTSFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Prograj^i No. of Units Occupied No. of Non-White Families 

1957 1958 1959 
Wilson Park 126 



15 



Federal Program 

Victory Hill 99 2 2 

PLYMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units Occupied No. of Non-White Families 

1957 1958 1959 
Olmstead Terrace and Standish Court 40 



SPRINGFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 


No. of Units Occupied 


No. of Non 


-White 


Pafnilies 






1957 


1958 


1959 


Reed Village 


200 


13 


1 2 

io 




Robinson Gardens 


136 


6 


c 



3 


Duggan Park 


196 


6 


5 


10 


Carpe Diem 


75 


1 


2 


2 


Total 


607 


26 


26 


30 


Federal Program 




1957 


1958 




Lucy Mallory Village 


34 


3 


Closed 




WORCESTER HOUSING AUTHORITY 






State Program 


No. of Units Occupied 


No. of Non 


-White 


Fofnilies 






1957 


1958 


1959 


Curtis Apartments 


390 


3 


3 


7 


Lakeside Apartments 


204 








1 


George F. Booth Memorial 










Apartments 


75 











Total 


669 


3 


3 


8 


Federal Program 




1957 


1958 


1959 


Great Brook Valley Gardens 


600 


20 


20 


15 



PUBLIC INFORMATION ACTIVITIES 

Inquiries 

Exclusive of those who filed complaints 410 individuals visited the Commission 
office to obtain information concerning their rights and obligations under the pro- 
visions of the Civil Rights statutes. 

Speaking Engagements 

116 speaking engagements were filled during the year by the Commission and staff. 
These appearances before civic, religious, fraternal and educational organizations 
enable the Commission to extend the scope of its public information program. 

Conferences 

The Commission maintains an open-door policy on conferences with individuals 
and organizations having problems that fall within its jurisdiction. 

In carrying out this policy the Commission held 251 conferences with representatives 
ot business, education, minority groups, labor, civic organizations, religious organ- 
izations and community relations councils. 

Three of the conferences had international overtones. They were held with groups 
from India, West Africa and Mexico. 

The group from India was sponsored by the Young Adult Council of the World 
Assembly of Youth. The delegation consisted of : 
Miss Vailyane Than 
Mr. P. T. Kuriakose 
Mr. and Mrs. A. J. Bajaj 
Mrs. Shav Dav 



lo 



Mr. Pasikh Gg 
Mr. Ranbal Brakh 

The delegation from West Africa was made up of representatives of the African 
Labor Movement. They were: 

Mr. Bengora Coulibaly of Sudan 

Mr. Damdouna Boubacar of Niger 

Mr. Andre Nama of Upper Volta 

Mr. Sabin Lalonjo of Dahomey 

Mr. Abdul Maham Ba of Senegal 
From Mexico came the following officials of the Labor and Social Service Ministry 
— Conciliation and Arbitration Section: 

Fernando Arispe — Diaz 

Manuel De La Cera — Alonso 

Andres Mendez — Gay 

Jesus Orona — Tovar 

Manuel Pinncla — Leon 

Antonio Saracho — Zapate 
Among other conferees from outside of Massachusetts were : 
Professor Arthur M. Ross, Director of the Institute of Industrial Relations, Uni- 
versity of California; Mr. Richard E. Guggenheim, Chairman, Ohio Civil Rights 
Commission; Mr. Wilfred C. Leland, Jr., Executive Director, Minnesota State Fair 
Employment Practices Commission; Senators Paul W. Boyles, Dennis J. Collins, 
William L. Grindle, and William Lyons, Illinois Commission On Aging and Aged ; 
United States Senator Patrick McNamara, Chairman, Sub-Committee on Problems 
of the Aging and Aged; and Air. Antonio Del Rios, Puerto Rican Department of 
Labor. 

Council Activities 

The main emphasis this year of the State Advisory Council and the seven regional 
Councils has been placed on educating the community in regard to the new private 
housing law. In addition to acquainting community leaders with the provisions of 
this law, a spot survey of their council activities shows : 
1. Surveys of Industrial Concerns 

Surveys depend upon cooperation from those concerns being surveyed. Since the 
passage of the fair employment practice law in 1946, questions before employment 
concerning race, color, religious creed, national origin and ancestry (and since 1950 
questions concerning age) are forbidden by the law. After employment these ques- 
tions may be asked, but in most cases they are not asked except the one dealing with 
age; and that is necessary in order to establish social security rights. 

When a field representative calls upon a concern to inquire if that company is 
aware of the duties of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, he 
makes inquiries concerning the following : 

1. Are you familiar with the objectives of the MCAD? 

2. Total number of employees in plant? 

3. Rate of employee turnover ? 

4. Employment sources ? Unions, Employment Agencies, Direct hiring, others. 

5. Approximately how many Negroes are employed? 
Approximate number of Negroes applying? If none, why? 
In what categories of employment chiefly? 

6. Approximately how many minority groups are employed? 
Puerto Ricans, others. Approximate number applying? 
If none, why? 

7. What is average age of employees? 
Approximately how many over 45 years of age? 

Approximately how many over 45 years of age hired during last year? 
Approximately how many applying ? If none, why ? 

8. Have there been any incidents among your personnel involving racial or religious 

discrimination ? 

9. Do you have a formal apprenticeship training program? 

(This means one registered with the Mass. Division of Apprentice Training) 
If not, do you have an on-the-job training program? 
(Any training that covers less than 4,000 hours) 



17 



10. How many Negro apprentices in the formal apprenticeship program? 

On-the-job training? 
Approximately how many apply for such training ? 
Formal apprenticeship program — On-the-job training? 

11. How are apprentices selected? 

12. Union affiliations? 

The person replying cannot refer to written data concerning race, religion, etc., 
because that is forbidden by the law and so depends upon intelligent estimates. Even 
so, the purpose of the survey is attained because the representative of the Commission 
has talked over with the representative of the company matters of importance to both ; 
questions have been answered; Commission material has been left and some degree 
of mutual acquaintance and understanding has been established. 

2. Study of the Effect of Pension Plans Upon the Hiring of Older Workers 

A question very often asked of the Commission is, "Why should a company hire an 
older worker, unless he is most exceptional, when it costs the company more to do 
so?" The Commission has been trying to determine if this statement is true. Does 
it cost more? Appreciably more? Is there any pension plan in operation that would 
not cost more and would protect the older worker as far as his pension is concerned? 
These are among the questions, answers to which were sought by this study. The 
Commission believes its conclusions to be still incomplete but from the material on 
hand, it would seem in reply to the questions raised above that hiring the older worker 
means setting more money aside according to actuarial tables at the time of hiring 
than would be necessary if a younger worker were hired. It does not necessarily 
mean however that ultimately the older worker will cost more. In practically every 
case he would receive less pension, assuming there is a pension plan. Furthermore, 
the older worker on the average has a lower accident record. Therefore the cost to 
the company might not be at all appreciable unless a vast number of older workers 
were hired simultaneously. 

In answer to the question concerning the best pension plan for older workers, it 
would seem that a pension which the older worker could take with him from one 
job to another would be best. This has been tried in certain allied industries where 
a worker may shift from one job to another and the pension plan is transferred as 
he moves about. 

3. Meetings with Realtors, Insurance and Banking Representatives In Regard to 

the Private Housing Law 
Each time the Commission is assigned a new law to administer it tries with the help 
of its Councils to contact the people and agencies most involved. Housing laws have 
been passed in rather rapid succession. After the Public Housing Law of 1950 there 
was an interval of seven years and then appeared in quick succession, (a) the law 
of 1957 forbidding discrimination in private housing assisted by public money; and 
(b) the private housing law of 1959. 

The Commission has attempted to meet with realtors, bankers, owners and insur- 
ance representatives to discuss the impact of these laws. This year the most widely 
attended meeting was held in Falmouth when the Commission members were guests 
of the Cape Cod Association of Realtors. 125 members of that Association attended 
the meeting, listened to an explanation of the private housing law and asked a number 
of questions. The Commission was delighted by the friendly and cooperative spirit 
expressed by those present. 

4. Study of Urban Redevelopment and Renewal 

Urban renewal and redevelopment have been discussed at a number of Council meet- 
ings. In some instances. Council members are also members of housing authorities 
and have been able to keep the Commission very much abreast of what is going on 
in their particular communities. Beyond the discussion stage, the Commission has 
not attempted to go. It stands ready to help if its assistance is requested. 

5. Attitude of Commission Toward Instances of Stereotyping 

An instance of racial stereotyping that proved offensive to a minority group was pre- 
sented to the Commission this year. It was felt that the local organization involved 
should (1) try to straighten the matter out on a local level but if it failed to do so, 
(2) the Commission stood ready to assist through its council members in that vicinity 
and if that failed, (3) through a general meeting called by the Commission. This 
is a general policy of the Commission in instances of this type. 

6. Study of Holding Power of High Schools Regarding Students 

Previous studies of the time when Negro students left school have tended to show 
that many of these students left school as soon as the law permitted. This tendency 
to drop out has been deplored by schools, the Urban League, the NAACP and other 



18 



civic-minded organizations well aware of the fact that a good basic education is more 
and more necessary in order to succeed in business or the professions. Recent reports 
seem to show this tendency has been arrested. A composite picture this year based 
upon reports from councils, parents and schools is very encouraging. 
7. Action Taken by "The Searchers" 

Councils have sponsored meetings to acquaint students with educational and industrial 
opportunities. One of the most gratifying responses was reported this year. 

Last year a group of young colored students had asked to be organized into a club. 
This group of young people calling themselves "The Searchers" try to live up to the 
club's motto of seeking "Truth, Education and Opportunity." Their object: to im- 
prove their social and economic position in the world. 

Only three years ago they were disoriented and insecure. To them the future held 
a life of menial jobs w^th small pay and little security. They were three years 
yoimger and consequently that much less mature but the philosophy of defeatism was 
even tlien beginning to sow its seeds. 

According to a story released by the Cape Cod Standard Times, the field repre- 
sentative for the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination assigned to the 
area saw immediately the need to build a faith in this teen-age element. 

The Standard Times article said : " 'Searchers' was an apt title for the club and 
the 12 original members voted on it unanimously. It described perfectly what their 
philosophy was to be — a search for better things. It was the start of an organiza- 
tion that, three years later has grown to a membership of 49. 

"The field representative took the j^oung people in hand. She tried to broaden 
their outlook. Under her guidance they took periodic examinations, prepared talks, 
discussed clothes and manners appropriate for business interviews and generally 
settled down to the examination of practical problems they would face upon gradua- 
tion from High School. 

"The idealism of the club members can best be shown by their latest venture. Last 
year they conceived the idea of establishing a scholarship, an idea which has been 
lauded by the principals of Harwich, Barnstable and Dennis-Yarmouth Regional High 
Schools — the schools which will be recipients of the awards. The scholarships at 
this time are modest — $50.00 to a student in the high school of each of the three 
towns." 

The Standard Times states, "The factor that is amazing is the altruism of the 
club members. They insisted only that the winners be students who had exhibited 
the greatest effort toward good citizenship in his community . . . 

"There is no question about the future of the club. Its success is bound to con- 
tinue — it is bound to grow." 

One of the factors that impressed the field representative is that last year the hiring 
of colored personnel in "good" jobs reached a new high. 

"This is a good sign," she stated. "It means that the young colored man is trying 
hard to rise out of the doubt and indiflference that plagued his older brothers. There 
is hope for the future." 



19 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 
November 10, 1946 to November 30, 1959 



Complaints : 

Initiated and received 1700 

Closed after formal hearing 3 

Closed after investigation and conference 931 

Closed for lack of probable cause 557 

Closed for lack of jurisdiction 66 

Withdrawn 86 

Pending investigation and conference 57 

Investigations Without Complaint: 

Initiated by the Commission 784 

Closed after investigation and conference 621 

Closed for lack of probable cause 148 

Transferred to complaint 7 

Pending investigation and conference 8 

Regulating and Supervising Age Amendment: 

Pending investigation and conference 16 651 

Closed for lack of probable cause 26 

Closed after investigation and conference 609 

TOTAL 3135 

Nature of Complaints and Investigations : 

Based upon alleged color discrimination 1171 

Based upon alleged religious discrimination 325 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of race 48 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of national origin 325 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of ancestry 36 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of age 1230 

Type of Complaints and Investigations : 

Against employers 2466 

Against employment agencies 136 

Against labor unions 34 

Others 60 

Public Accommodations 221 

Newspaper Advertising 145 

Public Housing 14 

Fair Educational Practices 9 

Publicly Assisted Housing 28 

Private Housing 22 



20 



A LIST OF CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES ADMINISTERED 
BY THE COMMISSION 

Chapter 368 of the Legislative Acts of 1946 brought into being the original Fair 
Employment Practice Commission as well as the Fair Employment Practice Law, 
Chapter 151 B of the General Laws. 

AMENDMENTS 

Chapter 479 of the Legislative Acts of 1950 changed the name of the Commission 
to its present one, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, and also in- 
creased the scope and jurisdiction of the Commission by placing within its province 
the administration of the Public Accommodations Statute and the Public Housing 
Statute. 

Chapter 697 of the Legislative Acts of 1950 increased the scope of the fair employ- 
ment practice statute to include age, defined as 45 to 65. 

Chapter 437 of the Legislative Acts of 1953 further defined a place of public ac- 
commodation, resort or place of amusement. 

Chapter 274 of the Legislative Acts of 1955 provided that any person seeking a 
bond or surety bond conditioned upon the faithful performance of his duties shall not 
be required to furnish information as to his race, color, religious creed, national origin 
or ancestry in applying for such a bond. 

Chapter 334 of the Legislative Acts of 1956 provided for the transfer of the juris- 
diction of the Fair Educational Practices Law from the Board of Education to the 
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. 

Chapter 426 of the Legislative Acts of 1957 provided that no person or group of 
persons may be denied the sale, rental or lease of private housing which is publicly 
assisted, because of their race, creed, color or national origin. 

Chapter 239 of the Legislative Acts of 1959 provided that no person may be denied 
the sale, rental or lease of privately owned housing accommodations in buildings of 
three or more apartments or developments of ten or more homes contiguously located. 

APPENDIX 

State Advisory Membership 

John J. Desmond, Jr.. Chairman, Draper, Sears & Company 

Dr. Gordon W. Allport, Professor of Psychology, Harvard University 

Rt. Rev. Robert P. Barry, LL.D., St. Clement's Church, West Somerville 

Dean Clarence Q. Berger, Brandeis University 

Thomas H. Carens, Massachusetts Electric & Gas Association 

Charles C. Dasey, Retired Manager, Cunard White Star SS Line, Secretary, 

Rotary Club of Boston 
Roland B. Gittelsohn, Rabbi, Temple Israel of Boston 
Judge Jacob J. Kaplan, Former President, Boston Bar Association 
Owen B. Kiernan, Commissioner of Education, Commonwealth of Mass. 
Rt. Rev. Anson Phelps Stokes, Bishop, Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Massa- 
chusetts 

Dean Howard Thurman, Marsh Chapel, Boston University 
Regional Council Membership 

Berkshire County 

Dr. James M. Burns, Chairman, Williams College 
Bruno Aron, Festival House, Lenox 

Samuel E. Bloomberg, Attorney at Law, Local Chairman, Anti-Defamation 
League, Adullum Lodge, B'nai B'rith 



21 



Nathaniel S. Brown, General Manager, Advance Publishing Co., Inc. 

Lincoln S. Cain, Partner in the Law firm of Cain, Chesney, Lewis & Humphrey 

John E. Coughlin, Painters' Union Xo. 94. Pittsfield 

Bruce Crane, Crane & Company, Dalton 

John F. Downing, Pittsfield 

J. Howard Fryer, Pittsfield 

W. Rankin Furey, President, Berkshire Life Insurance Company 
David L. Gunn, Berkshire County Branch NAACP 

The Rev. Andrew B. Jones, Rector, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Stockbridge 

S. Harley Jones, President, E. D. Jones Corporation, Pittsfield 

Henry Kullas. Manager, Berkshire Joint Board, Textile Workers Union of 

America, AFL-CIO 
Albert L. Litano, Pittsfield 

Hans K. Maeder, Director, The Stockbridge School, Interlaken 

Emil Metropole, Realtor, President. Berkshire Countv Real Estate Board 

Feland A. Nevers, D.D.S., NAACP 

George A. Newman, Attorney 

William J. Nolan, Vice President & Secretary. Sprague Electric Co. 

Arthur Burnham Phinney, Unitarian Church, Pittsfield 

Miss L. Alberta Pierce, Berkshire County Branch NAACP 

Mrs. Henry N. Rollinson, Berkshire County Branch NAACP 

Jay C. Rosenfeld, Pittsfield 

James M. Rosenthal, Attorney 

Dr. EMward J. Russell, Superintendent of Schools, Pittsfield 
Samuel Sass, Pittsfield 

Paul A. Tamburello, Attorney, United States Commissioner 

Frank T. Walker, 2nd Vice President, New England Regional NAACP 

LaFayette W. Walker, NAACP 

Boston 

Carl J. Gilbert, Chairman, Chairman of the Board, The Gillette Co. 
Professor Norman H. xA.bbott, Director of Placement, Boston University 
Julius Bernstein, Executive Secretary, Mass. AFL-CIO Civil Rights Committee 
Frederic C. Church, Senior Partner, Boit, Dalton & Church 
John V. Connolly, Business Manager, Boston Photo Engravers' Union No. 3 
Hubert L. Connor, Director of Apprenticeship, Division of Apprentice Training, 

Department of Labor & Industries 
Norris G. Davis, Davis Funeral Home 

John E. Deady, Secretary-Treasurer, Building & Construction Trades Council of 
the Metroploitan District 

William H. Eastman, Second Vice President, John Hancock Mutual Life Insur- 
ance Company 

Stephen W. Fardy, Executive Secretary, Allied Printing Trades Council 
Harold D. Hodgkinson, Chairman of the Board, Filene's 

Ernest A. Johnson, Building & Construction Trades Council of Metropolitan 
District 

Kenneth J. Kelley, Secretary-Treasurer, Mass. State Labor Council, AFL-CIO 
Stephen E. McCloskey, Executive Secretary, Greater Boston Massachusetts 

Labor Council, AFL-CIO 
Cornelius W. Owens, Vice President, Personnel, New England Telephone & 

Telegraph Company 
Thomas A. Pappas, President, C. Pappas Company, Inc. 
Leonard T. Peters, Executive Vice President, Peters Employment Service 
Sidney R. Rabb, Chairman of the Board, Stop & Shop 
Paul T. Rothwell, Chairman of the Board, Bay State Milling Company 
Arthur Seserman, Executive Secretary, Boston Branch, National Metal Trades 

Association 

F. Frank Vorenberg, President, Gilchrist Company 

Leslie E. Woods, Labor Advisor, Raytheon Manufacturing Company 

Cape Cod 

Dr. Lewis Paul Todd, Chairman. Editor, "Social Education" 



22 



Harold L. Baker, Chief of Police. Falmouth 

Harvard H. Broadbent, Superintendent of Schools, Hyannis 

Montcrief Cochran, Counsellor, Orleans High School 

Norman H. Cook, Executive Secretary, Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce, 

Hyannis 
Manuel Corey, Jr., Falmouth 

Charles A. Coyle, Director, Massachusetts Hotel Association 

Very Rev. Leonard J. Daley, Pastor, St. Francis Xavier Church, Hyannis 

Miss Eugenia Fortes, Hyannis 

Airs. Roma M. Freeman, Physical Education & Science Teacher, Barnstable 

Junior High School 
Mrs. Walter H. Garrison, Hyannis 
Joseph Gomes, Osterville 
Jack Gravier, Falmouth 

Malcolm R. Hobbs, Publisher of "The Cape Codder" 

George A. Hough, Jr., Editor & Publisher, "The Falmouth Enterprise" 

Joseph Indio, Editor & Publisher, "Nantucket Town Crier" 

Allan F. Jones, Contractor 

James H. Kennedy, Manager, Division of Employment Security 
John C. Linehan, Principal, Barnstable Junior High School, Hyannis 
Mrs. Benjamin T. Livingston, Inter-group Understanding, The Hyannis Woman's 
Club 

Thomas F. McKeon, Store Manager, Chairman Retail Division Board of Trade 

Harry S. Merson, Superintendent, Falmouth Public Schools 

Ben Morton, Secretary, Chamber of Commerce, Martha's Vineyard 

Mrs. Lillian Olsen, Treasurer, Hyannis Cooperative Bank 

John Pena, Contractor, Cape Verdian Club, State Board of Agriculture 

Sydney G. Pierce, Superintendent of Schools, Eastham, Orleans, Wellfleet 

Thomas Roderick, Teen-Age group coordinator, Hyannis 

Rev. Carl Fearing Schultz, D.D., Minister, The Federated Church of Hyannis 

Mrs. Ruth Schuman, Attorney at Law, Hyannis 

Miss Mary G. Shea, Correspondent, "Dennis-Yarmouth Register" 

Frank Simmons, Sr., Builder, East Falmouth 

Warren Sperl, Assistant Treasurer, Cape & Vineyard Electric Co. 
Rabbi Harold Spivack, Cape Cod Synagogue, Hyannis 
Frederick M. Sylvia, Falmouth 

Richard F. Tobin, Public Relations, Coonamesset Inn, Falmouth 
Mrs. Minna Witt, Proprietor, Admiral Hotel 

New Bedford 

Fred W. Steele, Chairman, Legislative Agent & Counsel for the Massachusetts 
Textile Industry 

Mrs. Valentina N. Almeida, Principal Clerk, City Auditor's Office 
Samuel Barnet, Special Justice, Third District Court, Bristol County 
Henry A. Bartkiewicz, Attorney, Secretary, Polish Relief Committee of NeAV 
Bedford 

Walter W. Bonner, New Bedford High School 

James M. Buckley, Director of Adult Civic Education, New Bedford School De- 
partment 

George E. Carignan, President, Greater New Bedford & Cape Cod Labor Council 
Joaquim A. Custodio, Traffic Manager, Modern Venetian Blinds, New Bedford 
Joseph Dawson, Jr., President & Treasurer, Knowles Loom Reed Works, Inc. 
Duncan A. Dottin, President, New Bedford Branch NAACP 
Joseph P. Duchaine, Industrialist, New Bedford 

Rev. Edmund G. Francis, SS.CC, Pastor, St. Mary's Church, Fairhaven 
The Rev. Edward A. Hailes, Union Baptist Church, New Bedford 
Miss Doris E. Hopkins, Executive Director, YWCA 
Harold Hurwitz, Attorney 

Hyman Krivofif, President & Treasurer, Dartmouth Finishing Corp. 
Miss Ruth B. McFadden, Superintendent of Schools, New Bedford 
George F. McGovern, Works Manager, Revere Copper & Brass, Inc. 



23 



Miss Helen Mclntyre, Veterans' Employment Representative. Massachusetts 

Division of Employment Security 
Toao R. Rocha, Publisher, Portuguese Daily News, New Bedford 
Fermino J. Spencer, New Bedford School Department 

Mrs. Dorothy B. Stahre, Principal, Charles S. Ashley School. New Bedford 
Joseph A. Sylvia. Jr., Register of Deeds 
The Hon. August C. Taveira 
Dr. Xenophon Thomas, NAACP 

Philip F. Tripp, Executive Director, New Bedford Housing Authority 
John Marcus Williams. Proprietor. Isabella's Beauty Salon 
Donald Zeman, Attorney 

Afrs. Anthony Zielinski, Vice President. Polish National Alliance; Trustee, 
Polish-American Veterans Auxiliary 

North Shore 

Henry Kozlowski, Chairman, Treasurer, Jackson & Phillips, Inc. 

Chester R. Arnold, Principal, Salem High School 

Anthony Athanas, President, Hawthorne Restaurants, Inc.. Lynn 

Mrs. Mary F. Berlyn, Supervisor, Adult Civic Education, Lynn Public Schools 

S. Matthew Carringtcn, President, Lynn NAACP Chapter 

Abraham Casw^ell, Treasurer, Caswell-Doucette Shoe Company 

Thomas D. Chatfield, President, Essex Trust Company 

Thomas J. Curtin, Director of Civic Education, Massachusetts Department of 
Education 

Mrs. Solomon Feldman, Jewish Federation of Greater Lynn 
Abraham Glovsky, Attorney ; B'nai B'rith 

Mrs. Charles F. Haywood, Chief Librarian, Lynn Public Library 
Dr. Francis L. Keane, Lynn Public Schools 
John M. Lilly, General Secretary, YMCA, Lynn 
LawTence G. AIcGinn, Superintendent of Schools, Lynn 

Mrs. Marcia L. Memmott, Director, Women's Division, Massachusetts Depart- 
ment of Commerce 

Chester C. Nemphos, Legislative Agent & Member, Civil Rights Committee, 

Local 201, lUE-CIO 
Mrs. William H. Nesbit, The Lynn Daily Evening Item 

Xorman J. Randell, Manager, Plant Community Relations, General Electric Co. 
Theodore Regnante, Chairman, Board of Trustees, Lynn Public Library 
Armand J. St. Laurent, Funeral Director, Lynn 
Dr. William D. Washington, Lynn 

William A. Welch, Superintendent of Schools, Peabody 

Springfield 
Charles V. Ryan, Attorney, Chairman 

Mrs. Richard B. Anderson, Community Council, Public Affairs Committee 
Archie Burack, Treasurer & General Manager, Industrial Buildings Corporation 
Miss Clarace E. Gait, Head Psychiatric Social Worker, Child Guidance Clinic 

of Springfield, Inc. 
George C. Gordon, Gordon Gibbs Associates 

Mrs. Muriel A. Griffin, President, The McKnight District Improvement Associ- 
ation 

Miss Alice Halligan, Director, Pupil Services and Adult Education, Springfield 
Public Schools 

Robert W. Hutton, Employers' Association of Western Massachusetts 
Dr. Howard P. Kennedy 

Raymond T. King, Attorney, Ely, King, Kingsbury & Corcoran 

A. Benjamin Mapp, Executive Director, Urban League of Springfield 

Bernard H. McMahon, President, Springfield Five Cents Savings Bank 

Roger L. Putnam, Chairman, Package Machinery Company, East Longmeadow 

Mrs. Roger L. Putnam, President & Treasurer, Catholic Scholarships for 

Negroes, Inc., Springfield 
Frederick B. Robinson, Director, Afuseum of Fine Arts, Springfield 



24 



James J. Shea, President, Milton Bradley Company 

Dr. Hans B. C. Spiegel, Community Tensions Center, Springfield College 
Charles Vivenzio, Local 202. lUE-CIO 

Mrs. Malcolm C. Webber, Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith 
Rev. D. Edward Wells. Minister, Mt. Calvary Baptist Church 

IV orcester 

Andrew B. Holmstrom, Chairman, Vice President, Norton Company 
Rev. Michael P. Bafaro, Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester 
Mrs. Lawrence J. Bouchard, Alassachusetts Parent-Teacher Association 
Dr. Arthur B. Bronwell, President, Worcester Polytechnic Institute 
Lyscom A. Bruce, Executive Secretary, Greater Worcester Community Chest 
and Council 

Rev. Hubert C. Callaghan, S.J., Director, Institute of Industrial Relations, Holy 
Cross College 

Aliss S. Virginia Carrier, Executive Director, Worcester YWCA 
Daniel J. Casale, Supervising Manager, Division of Employment Security, Wor- 
cester 

Frederic H. Case, Jr., Assistant District Director, Public Relations, United 

States Steel Corporation 
Thomas E. Christensen, Director of Guidance, Worcester Public Schools 
Dr. Leo T. Doherty, Superintendent of Schools, Worcester 
Donald S. Donnelly, Division of Employment Security 
Samuel J. Donnelly, A. F. of L., Worcester 
Mrs. Linwood M. Erskine, President, YWCA, Worcester 

Mrs. Daniel Farber, Commission on Interracial Policies and Program, National 
Council, YMCA 

Judge Joseph Goldberg, Chairman, Worcester Area Committee, Anti-Defamation 

League of B'nai B'rith 
Dr. Ralph L. Holland, Executive Secretary, Greater Worcester Area Council 

of Churches 

Dr. Howard B. Jefferson, President, Clark University, Worcester 
Mrs. Aura M. Kelliher, Principal Supervisor, Aid to Dependent Children Divi- 
sion, Board of Public Welfare 
Rabbi Joseph Klein, Temple Emanuel, Worcester 
John S. Laws, Interracial Council of Worcester 

Kenneth I. E. Macleod, M.D., M.P.H., Commissioner of Public Health 
Miss Anna Mays, Education Chairman for the New England Regional Con- 
ference, NAACP 
Philip M. Morgan, President, Morgan Construction Company 
Mrs. John C. Nicholson, Executive Director, Camp Fire Girls, Inc. 
Mrs. Stanley W. Norwood, Worcester Community Council 
Walter A. Olson, Executive Director, Family Service Organization of Wor- 
cester, Inc. 

Harry W. Oswell, Vice President, New England Regional NAACP 
Mrs. Arthur G. Perry, Worcester Council of Mothers' Clubs 
Edson D. Phelps, Second Vice President, State Mutual Life Assurance Company 
of America 

Mrs. Thomas L. Porter, Second Vice President, Massachusetts State Federation 

of Women's Clubs 
Mrs. Dorothy L. Salter, Salter Secretarial School, Worcester 
Luther C. Small, Executive Director, Worcester Housing Authority 
Mrs. George E. Spence, Chairman of Scholarship Committee of Women's Serv- 
ice Club of YWCA, Worcester 
Roy H. Stevens, Sub-Area Director, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO 
Dr. Joseph Weinreb. Director, Worcester Youth Guidance Center 



25 



REPORT BY MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST 
DISCRIMINATION TO THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE 
HEARING ON THE PROBLEMS OF THE AGED AND AGING 

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 
OCTOBER 13 AND 14, 1959 

In 1950 the original Fair Employment Practice law in Massachusetts was amended 
to include age. Age was defined in this amendment as "An Act relative to dis- 
crimination against employees and persons seeking employment between forty-five 
and sixty-five years of age." When this age amendment was incorporated in the 
original law, Section 4 of that law was revised to read : "Section 4. It shall be an 
unlawful employment practice : 

"1. For an employer, by himself or his agent because of the race, color, religious 
creed, national origin, age or ancestry of any individual, to refuse to hire or employ 
or to bar or to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate 
against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of 
employment, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. 

"2. For a labor organization, because of the race, color, religious creed, national 
origin, age or ancestry of any individual to exclude from full membership rights or 
to expel from its membership such individual or to discriminate in any way against 
any of its members or against any employer or any individual employed by an 
employer, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. 

"3. For any employer or employment agency to print, or circulate or cause to 
be printed or circulated any statement, advertisement or publication, or to use any 
form of application for employment or to make any inquiry or record in connec- 
tion with employment, which expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, speci- 
fication or discrimination as to race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or 
ancestry or any intent to make any such limitation, specification or discrimination, 
or to discriminate in any way on the ground of race, color, religious creed, national 
origin, age or ancestry, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. 

"4. For any person, employer, labor organization or employment agency to dis- 
charge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any person because he has opposed 
any practices forbidden under this chapter or because he has filed a complaint, testi- 
fied_or assisted in any proceeding under section five. 

"5. For any person, whether an employer or an employee or not, to aid, abet, 
incite, compel or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under this chapter 
or to attempt to do so." 

Paragraph 5. under Section 1 was revised to read: 

"5. The term 'emploj-er' does not include a club exclusively social, or a fraternal, 
charitable, educational or religious association or corporation, if such club, associa- 
tion or corporation is not organized for private profit, nor does it include any 
employer with fewer than six persons in his employ, but shall include the common- 
wealth and all political subdivisions, boards, departments, and commissions thereof 
in all respects except with respect to age." 

These changes mark to our way of thinking the most significant changes resulting 
from the age amendment. 

It is the feeling of the Commission that the greatest help given by this law to the 
older worker has been in regulating and supervising the age amendment through (1) 
checking help wanted ads appearing in the classified sections of Massachusetts news- 
papers to see if there are any specifications of age either direct or indirect and (2) 
checking application for employment blanks to see if there are any questions relative 
to age. In either instance if such specifications or questions occur the Commission 
requests that they be deleted. This has been done promptly in every case. 

The number of advertisements in violation of the law has decreased markedly in 
the last few years. In the beginning there was a terrific emphasis on youth. Now 



NOTE: The words in italics are those added to the original law by the age amend- 
ment. 



2() 

the advertisements specify job qualifications such as "keen eyesight," "nimble fingers'' 
or specify job titles. A more detailed reference is made to this checking of adver- 
tising in the annual report of 1950- 1951 and annual report of 1952- 1953. 

In 1955. five years after the passage of the amendment, the Commission began spot 
checking application blanks to discover if there were some in violation of the law 
in that they requested information about age before the applicant was hired. (After 
hiring this information may be acquired). The record of Commission initiated com- 
plaints based on violative application blanks is as follows : 

Commission Initiated Age Comtlaints : 

Beginning March, 1955 



Year Number 

1955 124 In every case the application blank 

1956 194 was corrected by deletion of the ques- 

1957 181 tion or substitution of the following 

1958 135 statement : "State age if under twentv- 

1959 66 one." 



The number of complaints made by individuals who came to the Commission be- 
cause they believed they had been discriminated against l)ecause of age numbers 78 
in a ten year period. 

PERSONAL COMPLAINTS BASED ON AGE 
AND HOW SETTLED SINCE NOV., 1950 



Year 


Xo. 


LOPC 


AIC 


LOJ W 


1950 


2 






2 


1951 


14 


7 


7 




1952 


8 


4 


3 


1 


1953 


4 


3 


1 




1954 


8 


5 


2 


1 


1955 


12 


7 


3 


2 


1956 


7 


3 


3 


1 


1957 


10 


4 


3 


1 2 


1958 


8 


1 


7 




1959 


5 


2 




1 



78 

Legend: 

LOPC Lack of Probable Cause 

AIC After Investigation & Conference 

LOJ Lack of Jurisdiction 

W Withdrawn 

O Open 



Additional material is attached comprised of quotes from Commission Annual Re- 
ports and three case histories. 



27 



EXCERPTS FROM ANNUAL REPORTS OF MASSACHUSETTS 
COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION CONCERNING 
AGE AMENDMENT 

(From Annual Report, 1950 to 1951) 

The Commission members met with representatives of industry, labor, insurance 
companies, the Massachusetts Employment Service, private employment agencies, 
newspapers and lawyers to discuss its new responsibility with regard to discrimina- 
tion in employment on account of age (45-65). 

As a result of its meeting with the members of the Massachusetts Newspaper In- 
formation Service, the chairman of the MNIS sent out the following letter : 

February 3, 1951 

To Classified Advertising Managers : 

Be careful of advertisements specifying age of prospective employees. Last 
October 30 there became effective a new state law prohibiting discrimination in 
employment of persons between the age of 45 and 65. After the law was passed, 
it became the task of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination to 
carry out enforcement. 

If the employer can prove that the age requirement is necessary, he is exempted 
from the provisions of the law. This type of exemption is called a "bona fide job 
qualification." 

The Commission has pointed out that newspapers become parties to violation of 
the law if they carry advertising that mentions age in connection with jobs for 
which there is no "bona fide job qualification." 

We urge that you have your ad takers watch out for help wanted ads mention- 
ing age. The ad taker should ask the prospective employer if the age requirement 
is a job qualification under the meaning of the law. If the prospective employer 
answers in the affirmative, the paper is legally covered, the Commission assures us. 

If the job qualification of age is in violation of the law, the paper becomes a 
party to any complaint that may be issued. Remember, however, it is up to the 
prospective employer to meet the provisions of the law. If he has any questions 
about age requirements in a job advertisement, he can call the Commission Against 
Discrimination at CApitol 7-3111 or write to the Commission at 41 Tremont Street, 
Boston 8, Massachusetts. The law does not apply to domestic help nor to persons 
or businesses employing less than six people. 

If you have any questions about this law and its application to your newspaper, 
write or call either John R. Herbert, Chairman, Massachusetts Newspaper Infor- 
mation Service, c/o Quincy Patriot Ledger. Quincy 69, Massachusetts, or Gardner 
Campbell, Secretary, c/o Wakefield Daily Item, Wakefield, Massachusetts. 

The Commission evolved a combination of educational-regulatory work to carry 
out the age amendment. The field staff was assigned to check thoroughly the help- 
wanted columns in the newspapers for advertisements for "young" men or women, 
general ads calling for "girls" or "boys", or for ads with age limitations affecting 
the 45-65 age bracket. Letters went to each employer so advertising, advising him 
that he could submit to the Commission certain job classifications he felt should be 
exempted from the age law for bona fide reasons, and the Commission would pass 
on each individual case upon its merits. 

The larger Boston metropolitan dailies (those with large classified ad sections) as 
a public service cooperated with the Commission in running advertisements calling 
attention to the age amendment. 
(From Annual Report, 1951 to 1952) 

During 1951 the question arose whether Chapter 697 of the Acts of 1950, amending 
Chapter 151B of the General Laws and prohibiting discrimination in employment 
against persons solely because they are between the ages of 45 and 65, applied to 
employees under pension or retirement plans which provide for their involuntary dis- 
charge between the same ages. 

To clarify this point, Senate No. 200 of 1959, was filed with the last session of the 
Legislature by a member of the public. Senate 200 would have amended Chapter 697 
by the addition of the following sentence : — "This act shall not apply to termination 
of employment because of the terms or conditions of any retirement or pension plan." 



28 



The proposed change was passed by the Legislature but vetoed by the Governor 
and his veto was sustained. 

Subsequently, AICAD published a memorandum setting forth its position on the 
effect of the age amendment on retirement or pension plans. Paragraph V and VI 
of this memorandum follows : 

V. "The effect of the refusal of the Legislature to finally enact into law the said 
Senate Bill, No. 200, impels this Commission to rule that it was the intention 
of the Legislature that the amendment as to discrimination on account of age 
should be effective even though there is a retirement or pension plan in exis- 
tence calling for the retirement of an employee arriving at an age of between 
45 and 65 years. 

VL "Under the above circumstances and in view of the action of the Legislature 
in refusing to enact into law the said Senate Bill, No. 200, this Commission 
rules that any provision in a retirement or pension plan calling for retirement 
of employees who are between 45-65 years of age is ineffective even though 
such retirement plan was made prior to the 1950 Act becoming a law. This 
Commission, therefore, rules that any such termination of employment of em- 
ployees between the ages of 45-65 is void and of no effect, and any action of 
termination of employment because of such a provision is a violation of Chap- 
ter 151B, Section 4, Subdivision I, and is a violation of that law." 
(The above paragraphs are predicated on the assumption that any termination of 
employment is based solely on age.) 

(From Annual Report, 1952 to 1953) 

The Commission's educational-regulatory policy to prevent discrimination against 
employees and persons seekmg employment between forty-five and sixty-five years of 
age was continued during the past year. The field staff checked advertisements in 
the help wanted column of the newspapers throughout the state for ads that were 
contrary to the provisions of the age amendment. The violative ads (if not based 
on bona fide occupational qualification) were classified by the Commission into two 
categories ; those specifjnng age indirectly such as "young" men or women, "boys" or 
"girls" and those specifying age directly by requests for age itself, or limiting per- 
sons to a particular age bracket such as "between 20 and 35 years." 

Certain job descriptions such as "errand boy" "stock boy" "office girl," etc., have 
been ruled as non-discriminatory by the Commission because they are classed as occu- 
pational titles by the United States Department of Labor. 

A form letter was sent to each employer advertising for an employee or employees 
in a manner which might be contrary to the law. This letter contained a copy of 
the ad, the name of the newspaper and the day and month it appeared. The letter 
also stated : 

"On October 30, 1950, Chapter 697 of the Acts of 1950 became effective. This 
law prohibits discrimination in employment against persons between forty-five and 
sixty-five years of age, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification 
The advertisement above may be a violation of this law. 

"This Commission is charged with the enforcement of this law. 
"It is not the policy of this Commission to file a complaint without inquiry. 
There may be legal reason for the form of that advertisement in that it may be 
a bona fide qualification, or it is possible that you are unaware of the law and of 
its requirements. Therefore, this letter is sent to you calling your attention to this 
matter with the request that you inform this Commission as to why you specified 
age directly or indirectly. If you claim that the age specification is based upon a 
bona fide occupational qualification, your reply should also contain a statement of 
the facts upon which you base this claim. 

"Your prompt cooperation concerning this matter will be appreciated." 
Eighty-six of the employers contacted requested exemptions from the law on claims 
of bona fide occupational qualifications. Such requests were acted upon by the Com- 
mission members and exemptions were allowed or not, according to the individual 
merits of each case. Thirty-seven exemptions were granted. In these thirty-seven 
matters a majority of the Commissioners determined that the age of the persons to 
be hired was a qualification for the job under consideration. 

The forty-nine employers who were denied exemptions by the Commission were so 
notified and have abided by that decision. 



29 



The hundreds of other employers contacted who did not ask for an exemption 
have sent letters to the Commission stating that in the future their advertising would 
be so worded that it would not violate the law. 

As a result of the reported procedure a considerable improvement has been noted. 
It is evidenced by the decreasing number of discriminatory advertisements concern- 
ing age. Some of these advertisements are legal since they are based on bona fide 
occupational qualifications, but those that are not. must be eliminated as references 
in advertising to race, color, religious creed, national origin and ancestry have been 
eliminated. 

(From Annual Report, 1953 to 1954) 

The educational-regulatory policy instituted by the Commission when it was given 
the additional duty to administer Chapter 697 of the Legislative Acts of 1950 (age 
amendment) was continued during the past year. 

Periodic checks were made of the help wanted advertisements of all the daily and 
weekly newspapers published in the Commonwealth. Notices were sent to 326 em- 
ployers and employment agencies bringing to their attention specific violations and 
requesting a statement as to the reasons for specifying age directly or indirectly. 

316 of those contacted pleaded ignorance of the law. and stated in writing their 
compliance with the law in future help wanted advertising. 

Ten business organizations requested an exemption based on the premise that age 
constituted a bona fide occupational qualification. 

Exemptions were granted to six and four requests were disapproved. 

(From Annual Report, 1954 to 1955) 

The educational-regulatory policy instituted by the Commission when it was given 
the additional duty to administer Chapter 697 of the Legislative Acts of 1950 (age 
amendment) was continued during the past year. 

Periodic checks were made of the help wanted advertisements of all the daily and 
weekly newspapers published in the Commonwealth. Notices were sent to 786 em- 
ployers and employment agencies bringing to their attention specific violations and 
requesting a statement as to the reasons for specifying age directly or indirectly. 

735 of those contacted pleaded ignorance of the law, and stated in writing" their 
compliance with the law in future help wanted advertising. 

51 business organizations requested an exemption based on the premise that age 
constituted a bona fide occupational qualification. Five of these requests were ap- 
proved. 

(From Annual Report, 1955 to 1956) 

Periodic reviews were made of the "help wanted" advertisements of all the daily 
and weekly newspapers published in the Commonwealth. 

Notices were sent to 1046 employers and employment agencies bringing specific 
violations to their attention. The notices required a written answer as to the reasons 
for specifying age directly or indirectly. 

994 of those receiving notices, to date, claimed the law violation was inadvertent 
and pledged that in the future their advertising would conform to the statute as it 
relates to advertising and hiring. 

55 employers requested exemptions under this age amendment, claiming that age 
was a bona fide job qualification. The Commission approved four such requests for 
exemption. 

(From Annual Report, 1956 to 1957) 

Notices were sent to six hundred and seventy-three (673) employers and employ- 
ment agencies bringing to their attention violations of the age amendment to the fair 
employment practice statute. The violations appeared in help wanted advertisements 
in the classified sections of the daily newspapers. 

The notices required a written answer to determine whether the age specification 
for the job advertised came within the category of a bona fide occupational quali- 
fication. 

Thirty-two (32) employers requested exemptions declaring age to be a bona fide 
occupational qualification. 



30 



In no instance was there sufficient evidence furnished to warrant the granting of 
an exemption. 

(From Annual Report, 1957 to 1958) 

The Commission employs a system of screening help wanted advertisements of 
Aiassachusettts newspapers for possible violations of the age amendment. 

Notices are sent to the employers and employment agencies specifying the viola- 
tions noted and requesting written answers for determination as to whether the age 
specification was based on a bona fide occupational qualification. 

422 such notices were sent out during the past year. Eighteen employers requested 
exemptions on the ground that age was a bona fide job qualification. All of the 
exemption requests were refused for lack of sufficient evidence to warrant the grant- 
ing of an exemption. 



31 



THREE CASE HISTORIES 
DEALING WITH DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 
BASED ON AGE 



/. 

The complainant, a woman age 51, applied and was interviewed for a position as 
secretary. 

At the conclusion of the interview, which was conducted by three officials of the 
respondent, the complainant was told that her qualifications were excellent and that 
she probably would be chosen for the job. 

The following- day an official of the respondent company telephoned the complain- 
ant and asked for her age, declaring that she should have answered the age inquiry 
when filling out the employment application form. Complainant demurred stating 
that it was against the law for an employer to inquire into the age of an applicant 
prior to employm.ent. The respondent official is alleged to have stated that he didn't 
care about any law ; he wanted the missing information. The complainant gave her 
age. 

Approximately four weeks later, not having heard from the company, complainant 
called and was told that the position had been filled by a young girl. 

Investigation of the complaint substantiated the allegation that the complainant 
was denied employment because of her age. 

Probable cause having been found the terms of conciliation were as follows : 

A. That the respondent inform all personnel interviewing applicants for employ- 
ment that age should not be used as a job qualification and that no inquiry, direct 
or indirect, should be made with reference to age prior to employment. 

B. That the employment application form used by the respondent be changed to 
conform with the fair emplovment practice law by deleting the inquiry "Date of 
Birth." 

C. That the complainant be employed in the position for which slie applied. 

2. 

In February of this year a complaint was filed with the Commission by a woman, 
age 60, employed in a large plant located in Central Massachusetts. 

The allegation of the complaint was that the respondent had refused to allow her 
to exercise seniority rights, solely because of her age, in transferring to a job for 
which she was qualified. The request for the transfer was precipitated by a lay-oflF 
then being put into effect throughout the plant. 

Investigation revealed that the job to which she had requested a transfer was a 
job which she had performed previously although on a temporary basis for eight 
months prior to the lay-off. 

The investigation further revealed that a much younger woman, having less service 
with the respondent than the complainant, had been assigned to the job. 

In addition, it was developed that 90% of the work in the section of the plant to 
which the transfer request was made was done by females so that the contention of 
the respondent that the work was too heavy for the complainant did not in and of 
itself establish the physical requirements for the job. 

A meeting was held in the office of the Commission at which all parties in interest 
and their attorneys were present. The meeting, informal in nature, was conducted 
by the investigating commissioner, who guided both sides to present the pertinent 
facts of the case. 

Enough facts having been produced to substantiate the allegation contained in the 
complaint, the investigating commissioner successfully accomplished a conciliation of 



32 



the complaint and the complainant was returned to the job to which she had re- 
quested transfer and with no loss of seniority rights. 

3. 

The complainant, a woman 56 years of age, applied for light assembly work at the- 
respondcnt company, in answer to a newspaper advertisement. She was informed 
by the personnel manager that the company did not have a job which she could do. 
She asked for an opportunity to prove her ability and was informed that her em- 
ployment application form had supplied sufficient information. 

In the prior interview, the personnel manager had informed the complainant, if 
she passed a manual dexterity test, she would be hired. She completed the test and 
was informed by the person administering it that she had passed with the "highest 
possible mark." She contacted the company a number of times in person and by 
telephone. Each time she was informed there was no employment for her. 

The complainant charged the respondent company with discrimination against her 
in denying her employment because of her age. 

Investigation revealed that the respondent company employed several hundred per- 
sons. The rate of turnover of employees was approximately ten per week. Members 
of minority groups were employed in various capacities. Records used prior to em- 
ployment conformed to the law. 

According to the personnel director, a number of jobs had been vacant since the 
complainant's original application. However, tliese jobs were in production and the 
complainant was not qualified for such work. 

Investigation of company records revealed that in the period since the complain- 
ant's application to the date of her complaint to the Commission, a period of five 
months, 100 female employees had been hired in production. The majority of the 
new production employees were recent high school graduates without previous ex- 
perience. 

A review of the complainant's employment application form and record at the Com- 
mission office revealed that she had six years' experience in production work, and one 
additional year in a similar industry. 

The personnel director denied that he had told the complainant that if she passed 
the manual dexterity test she would be hired. He added that all, except former em- 
ployees, must take the test before being considered for employment. He denied that 
the respondent discriminated against the complainant because of her age, pointing out 
two employees, one 41 years of age and another 45. He insisted that the work at 
the respondent required good eyesight, dexterity, and in some instances was tedious 
and dangerous. Therefore, due to the nature of the business, the majority of the 
employees were young girls. 

The respondent's representative stated that the complainant's age was not the reason 
she was not hired. He added that he would re-interview the complainant and attempt 
to place her with the company. 

The following day he contacted the Commission stating he had interviewed the com- 
plainant and found her to be a very satisfactory prospect and he would attempt to 
employ her shortly. 

A short time later the complainant contacted the Commission stating that she had 
been employed by the respondent. She added that she was very pleased with the 
position she held. 



'7^ f 

Public Document No. 163 



IHO 



EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 
FIFTEENTH 

ANNUAL REPORT 

of the 
Massachusetts : Commission 
Against Discrimination 

December 1, 1959 - December 31, 1960 




Mildred H. Mahoney, CJtairman 
Walter C. Carrington, Commissioner 
Ben G. Shapiro, Commissioner 
Walter H. Nolan, Executive Secretary 

41 Tremort*' Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Xyf'l^^'^^^nr..^^ "^^^^ Document Approved by Alfred C. Holland, Statf Purchasing Agent 
3M-5-61-930706 Estimated Cost Per Copy: $ .16 



siAJtllBRASy OF MASSACHUSETTS 



AUG 101961 

CONTENTS 

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON 

MASS. OFFICIAUS p^g^ 

INTRODUCTION 3 

SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTIVITIES 3 

FAIR EAIPLOYMENT PRACTICES 4 

Case Histories 4 

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS 5 

Case History 5 

FAIR EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES 6 

Restrictive Bequests 7 

Schools of Nursing 8 

FAIR HOUSING PRACTICES 8 

Private Housing 8 

Regulatory Activities 8 

Selected Case Summaries 9 

Public Hearings 10 

Marshall v. Middlesex Homes et ol . . . . . . 10 

Fowler v. A. J. Colangelo et al . . . . . . 15 

Regulation 15 

Real Estate Offices as Places of Public Accommodation . . 16 

Non-Regulatory Activities 17 

New Legislation 19 

Public Housing 20 

EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS 25 

Council Activities 25 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 28 

CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMISSION 29 

APPENDIX 29 

Conference of Conimis.sions. Against Discrimination 29 

List of Council Membership 30 



3 



FIFTEENTH ANNUAL 



REPORT OF THE 



MASSACHUSETTS 



COMMISSION 



AGAINST DISCRIMINATION 



INTRODUCTION 



Is it pointless to repeat what is said in practically every paper and magazine? Are 
there perhaps some things that cannot be over-emphasized? We think there are. 
We think we are privileged to work in a field the importance of which cannot be 
over-emphasized. 

It is the duty of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination through 
enforcing laws and carrying on an educational program to strive to eliminate discrimi- 
nation. To the extent that this can be accomplished people will regard and reward 
other people solely on the basis of individual merit. If such an evaluation could be 
completely accomplished we would live in a truly fraternal land and man's inhumanity 
to man would be at an end. 

We hear much and read much about discrimination, and it is good that we do — 
the cruel exclusions that are practiced because of race, religion, national origin, an- 
cestry and sometimes, in fact many times, just because of age. We hear and read 
very much about the propaganda which exposes this situation to foreign lands. We 
hear much less about the action of State Legislatures that in eighteen states have 
passed laws to correct these social injustices. We believe it is wholesome to call 
attention to such legislation and the interest that prompts it and to announce with 
pride that Massachusetts has more laws forbidding discrimination than any state in 
the United States. 

The following report places great emphasis on the housing situation and tells first 
in summary form and then in more detail what the Commission has accomplished in 
the last year — accomplishments made possible in many instances through the co- 
operation of other agencies and interested individuals. To them we are deeply grate- 



SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTIVITIES 

The fifteenth annual report includes the period, from December 1, 1959 to Decem- 
ber 31, 1960. 



The Commission received and processed 395 matters involving discrimination based 
on race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry. 

The Commission staff interviewed officials of 602 business concerns throughout the 
Commonwealth. The purpose of these interviews was to minimize the possibilities of 
violations of the laws by offering instructions, interpretations, answers to specific 
questions and general information pertaining to the statutes ; to review employment 
application forms and hiring policies and to obtain compliance with the section of 
the statute which requires the posting of the summary of the law in a conspicuous 
place on the premises. 

Of the 602 employers interviewed, 154 were found to be using employment applica- 
tion forms which were in violation of the fair employment practice section of the 
statute. Twenty-eight businesses were inquiring into the national origin of appli- 
cants, three employers made inquiry into the religion and two employers recorded 
the color of applicants. The remaining violations concerned inquiries into the age 
of applicants. As the result of complaints initiated by the Commission in each in- 
stance the violations of the law were corrected. 

252 notices of possible violation of the employment section of the fair practices law 
in help-wanted advertisements were sent to employers and employment agencies. Cor- 
rections were made and the violations of the law eliminated as the result of these 
notices. 



ful. 



4 



Each year a review is made of the advertising material used by hotels, motels and 
guest houses, as the Commission is authorized to do under the provisions of the 
Public Accommodations statute. 

This year the advertising- material of 1059 places of public accommodations were 
examined. As in previous years no violations of the statute were found. 

The year previous to this report the Commission mailed to every resort hotel, motel 
and guest house the official public accommodation poster which was to be exhibited 
in a conspicuous place on the premises. 

During the months of July and August of this year staff members surveyed 209 
hotels, motels and guest houses to determine compliance with the regulation that 
owners must exhibit the official public accommodations poster on the premises. Of 
the premises surveyed only fifty-one of the places of public accommodation were in 
compliance with the regulation. Immediate compliance with the regulation was ob- 
tained from those who had failed to display the poster. 

The chiefs of police of thirty-five towns were visited and the provisions of the 
public accommodations statute discussed with them. 

A study was made of the tenant selection policy of twenty-seven Public Housing 
authorities for the purpose of determining compliance with the Public Housing amend- 
ment to the law. 

The number of non-white families living in each housing development is shown 
in the PUBLIC HOUSING section of this report. 

A survey was made of the forms filled out by members of the public when applying 
for policies or seeking to use the services and facilities of insurance companies ap- 
proved to do business in the Commonwealth. Of the 300 insurance companies sur- 
veyed fifty-five made inquiries into the race, color or nationality of persons seeking 
their services. The results of the survey were turned over to the Commissioner of 
Insurance, Otis A. Whitney, who, at the present time, is endeavoring tO' bring about 
the elimination of these inquiries on a voluntary basis. 

In addition to those who filed complaints 727 individuals visited the Commission 
office to make inquiries concerning their rights and obligations under the provisions of 
the Civil Rights statutes. 

In a joint effort notices were sent to thirty thousand licensees by the Board of 
Registration of Real Estate Brokers and Salesmen. The notice, signed by Board 
Chairman Joseph J'. Mulhern, made known the public policy of the Commonwealth 
which directs non-discrimination in the sale and rental of real property. 

A study was made of the admission policies of sixty-two Schools of Nursing lo- 
cated within the Commonwealth. Violations of the fair educational practices law 
were found in the admissions practices of thirty-one of the schools. Full compliance 
was obtained in each instance. 

The Commission members and staff filled 115 speaking engagements and conducted 
119 conferences. Two of these conferences are later reported in some detail. 

During the year the Commission has adopted a Fair Housing Practices Poster Reg- 
ulation and prepared Fair Housing Practices Posters to be distributed to apartment 
houses and housing developments. 

The Commission also revised its Rules of Practice and Procedure and the Rulings 
Interpretive of the Fair Employment Practice Law. It has also, with the help of 
Dr. Thomas J. Curtin, Director, Civic Education, Department of Education, revised 
the very valuable unit of study for secondary schools, Discrimination — Danger to 
Democracy. 

FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES 

Case Histories 

1. Color Discrimination 

The following case history serves as an example of the cooperation extended 
to the Commission by industry once the complaint process has been initiated. 

On 25 February 1960 a verified complaint was filed with the Commission by a 
young Negro recently discharged from the United States Air Force. 



5 



In his allegations complainant declared that he was referred by the Massachu- 
setts State Employment Service to a job opening calling for an I.B.M. tabulator 
operator. 

Complainant was given an application form by the company official and when 
he had completed the form he was interviewed. 

During the interview complainant stated that he made known that while in the 
Air Force over a period of three and one-half years he had completed seven courses 
in Basic I.B.M. machine operation and functional wiring principles. 

According to the complaint the respondent company was looking for a 402 
tabulator operator and would train the person hired for the 407 and 604 tabulator. 
Complainant had completed the basic course for the 407 tabulator while in the Air 
Force. 

It is alleged that after complainant had told of his training the interviewer dis- 
cussed and reached an agreement on salary with him. Complainant was told that 
respondent would get in touch with him by the middle of the following week. 

A month elapsed without complainant hearing from the respondent company. 
Complainant charged the company with unlawful discrimination in denying him em- 
ployment because of his color. 

The investigation of the allegations was begun with respondent officials. 

Respondent's rebuttal to the charges of not hiring complainant because of his 
color was that the successful applicant had more business experience. 

Respondent, in reviewing complainant's background experience, concluded that 
he would qualify for another opening which would require special training. 

The job was offered complainant who accepted. (Complaint No. XV-17-C) 
2. Age Discrimination 

Information was submitted to the Commission, along with some documentary 
evidence, that a large employment agency was distributing circulars to employers 
listing background sketches of individuals seeking jobs as administrative and sales 
personnel. The background information contained the age of each of the job seekers. 

The Commission on its own motion issued a complaint against the employment 
agency charging a violation of the age amendment to the fair employment practice 
law. 

The head of the agency was contacted and served a copy of the complaint. 
Respondent declared that he had knowledge of the provisions of the law but 
had overlooked the age factor. 

Mailing of the circular was immediately discontinued. 

The circular was revised to conform in all respects to the provisions of the 
statute. 

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS 

Chapter 272, Section 98 of the General Laws is commonly referred to as the Public 
Accommodations statute. Its purpose is contained in the following sentences : 

"... All persons shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations, advan- 
tages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, resort or amuse- 
ment, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable 
alike to all persons. This right is recognized and declared to be a civil right." 

Case History 

On 22 June 1960 a verified complaint was filed against a Mobile Home Park 
alleging unlawful discrimination because of color in denying the rental of facilities 
and admission to the area. 

Complainant, a woman, alleged that she and her sister applied to a trailer park 
to rent space for their trailer (mobile home). She had obtained the name of the 
trailer park from the list published in Woodalls Directory of Mobile Home Parks. 



6 



The park was fully occupied. The owner offered to help the women locate their 
trailer in another park in a nearby area. He telephoned to a trailer park and talked 
with the owner who asked the length of complainant's trailer (29 feet) and whether 
or not there were children. When answered in the negative it was made known to 
them that there was space available. 

Complainant declared that she drove immediately to the park and was met by a 
man who claimed to be the owner. He had waved complainant to a stop prior to 
her reaching the office. 

Upon approaching the car the owner is alleged to have said, "I have no place here 
for you." 

Complainant stated that she reminded the owner that less than ten minutes before 
he had told another home park owner in her presence that he had a vacancy. His 
answer was, "I have no place for you." 

Complainant claimed that she asked if the reason he now had no space for her 
trailer was because she is Negro. The owner is alleged to have declared, "Since you 
have asked it, yes, that is the reason. I will not have Negroes in my park." 

Complainant, therefore, charged the respondent with unlawful discrimination 
against her because of her color in denying her space for her mobile home. 

On 29 June 1960 the respondent was interviewed by the Commission field repre- 
sentative assigned to investigate the complaint. 

Respondent admitted that the allegations contained in the complaint were true. He 
feared putting colored people in the park, afraid it would ruin his business. Re- 
spondent claimed that he had not realized that he was breaking a law when he refused 
trailer space accommodations to complainant. 

At the conclusion of the interview respondent declared that he would comply with 
any recommendation of the Commission. 

On 7 July 1960 the Investigating Commissioner conferred informally with com- 
plainant and her sister. A review of the investigation was made. 

Respondent had declared that he would cooperate with the Commission in every 
way possible. Complainant therefore was asked if she still wished to rent trailer 
space at this park. She answered in the affirmative and to another question stated 
that she would like to occupy the space beginning on 22 July 1960. 

Respondent was called and agreed to have space available for complainant on the 
day specified. 

On 29 July 1960 complainant contacted the Commission to state that she was hap- 
pily situated in a choice location in the park and that her new neighbors had proved 
to be very friendly. 

On 25 November 1960, the day after Thanksgiving, complainant wrote a letter of 
appreciation to the Commission. The letter reads in part as follows : 

"In this season of thankfulness, it seems fitting to write to you to express my ap- 
preciation for your effective cooperation in getting my trailer placed last July. 

"Without your assistance, I would never have been able to enter the Park and 
enjoy my trailer there as I did. 

"After your intercession in the case, my business dealings with the owner were 
extremely satisfactory. Our neighbors there were very cordial and welcomed my 
sister and me warmly. This made our stay a very happy one. 

"Thank you again for helping me solve my dilemma." 
(Complaint No. PX-IO-C) 

FAIR EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES 

Enrollment figures for schools in Massachusetts continue to show increases. While 
state, city and town educational institutions have been expanded and enlarged to a 
marked degree, the protests from taxpayers' groups have kept a pressure on public 
education expenditures. Consequently, crowded conditions, two- and even three- 



7 



session days, and clamor for summer sessions, reflect the inadequacy of existing edu- 
cational equipment. The private or independent schools, adding to their endowments 
and capital investments as fast as possible, have found it necessary to establish new 
limits on membership. Hence, students from all groups must struggle for recognition 
at the admissions offices. 

Selections by the school officials are almost universally made on the results of 
entrance examinations. These are either given by the schools themselves or, as is 
more often the case, applicants are asked to take the Board Examinations prepared 
for both college and secondary school admission by the College Entrance Examina- 
tion Board, Princeton, New Jersey. This competitive situation has little regard for 
race, religion, ethnic origin or social status. Consideration of financial need is 
handled by scholarship committees to the extent that truly worthy, capable applicants 
are selected. Many schools, feeling the pressure of numbers, do not hesitate to make 
frequent screenings, eliminating often some supposedly promising students if they 
fail to work up to the level of their potentialities. Minority groups are guaranteed 
fair but not special consideration. Students from such areas frequently have to work 
extra hard to make up for any deficiencies which could be attributed to academic, 
social or economic handicaps. 

No case of unjust discrimination has been found by the Commission in the admission 
practices of over 300 independent schools in Massachusetts during the past year. 
Schools visited or corresponded with indicated complete cooperation with the Com- 
mission and reaffirmed their desire to erase any traces of unjust discrimination in the 
treatment of applicants or accepted students. 

Restrictive Bequests 

From time to time schools have been faced with the problem of accepting a bequest 
which sets up a student aid, loan or scholarship fund with certain restrictions. Dur- 
ing the early history of the colleges and many of the academies in Alassachusetts 
funds were received which stipulated that the income should be used "exclusively 
for" . . . aiding students of a particular group. Often these restrictions had to do 
with descendants of a certain family, sometimes with members of a designated re- 
ligious faith, and sometimes with students of a specified race or color. Since these 
funds have been administered for students already admitted into membership, the 
Commission has not felt that it had jurisdiction over their use. In the last few years 
there have been several schools which have been tendered bequests which were to be 
used for student aid and such bequests have had restrictions which have caused the 
Boards of Trustees to hesitate. At least one prominent academy was offered a sub- 
stantial sum "the income from which ... is to be used for scholarship aid to students 
not of Italian descent." The academy decided not to accept the gift in its present 
form and the Testament is still before the Court to decide if the bequest may be 
given into existing scholarship funds. 

When student aid of such restricted nature is used to make possible the admission 
of a student who may need additional funds, the Commission feels that there is a 
real element of discrimination. The use of the funds as an award to a specific student 
for worthy school membership is not now covered by existing anti-discrimination laws. 
However, the Commission hopes that future bequests will not limit the distribution of 
income to members of a specific group and thereby exclude possible recipients because 
of their race, color or religious affiliation. 

The Educational Specialist on the Commission's staff has visited a large number of 
schools which are now using the study outline "Discrimination — Danger to Democ- 
racy." It is believed that the introduction and use of this booklet has helped make 
the courses in social studies more realistic in the field of civic education. The success 
of the venture has prompted the Commission to arrange for a revision and re-printing 
of the brochure. Copies of the new edition will be available to school and study 
groups sometime during the first part of the new year. Annual reports of the Com- 
i mission and readings from the extensive, up-to-date bibliography will make helpful 
accompanying material. 



8 



Schools of Nursing 

During the past year a stud}- was made of the admission practices of the Schools 
of Nursing and the approved Schools of Practical Nursing in the State. Wliile only 
one complaint of actual discrimination had been filed with the Commission, it ^vas 
found that there were procedures in vogue which were not in full accord with the 
policies of the Commission in administering the Fair Educational Practices Act. 

More than half of the forty-six Schools of Nursing and sixteen approved Schools 
of Practical Nursing were found to be violating the law^ in one form or another. 
Eight schools were asking for photographs while thirty-seven schools were asking for 
birth certificates, or place of birth or citizenship. All of these schools have now 
changed their admission forms to agree with the interpretations of the Commission. 
It w^as discovered that the schools were required to have proof of age before ad- 
mitting for study and the birth certificates were required for graduates who were 
taking the State Board examinations. Applicants must state their correct ages but 
since the birth certificates indicate both color and place of birth it has been agreed 
that they may not be required until after an applicant has been accepted for admission. 
The State requires that applicants must be seventeen years old to enter a School of 
Nursing and seventeen years, tliree months, to enter Schools of Practical Nursing. 

It was further found that several of the schools visited were using an admission 
blank fiurnished by the National League for Nursing which contained a querv- con- 
cerning citizenship. Several states, besides Massachusetts, had brought this to the 
attention of the National League for Nursing authorities. .\s a result of the investi- 
gations, the League now publishes a set of forms which conform to the Fair Practices 
laws of these States. In the case of schools in Massachusetts, the}- propose to block 
out the query on citizenship on any blanks which they already had on hand. 

FAIR HOUSING PRACTICES 

Private Housing 
Regulatory Activities 

The right to live in the neighborhood of one's choice continues to be the right most 
widely denied to citizens of the Commonwealth whose skins are not white. In the 
past thirteen months to the ofiiices of the Commission have come Puerto Ricans, 
Chinese- Americans, Africans, Japanese and most numerously American Negroes to 
complain of housing discrimination. Army ofiicers and electronics engineers, wage 
earners and students all have felt equally the humiliating refusal of landlords and 
real estate agents to deal fairly with them. 

1960, the first full year in which the Commission administered the Fair Housing 
Law, produced considerable evidence of that statute's eftectiveness. Together with 
the Attorney General's ruling on the duties of real estate brokers, new legislation 
afiFecting lending institutions, and administrative rulings by the Board of Real Estate 
Registration, it has helped to place a formidable arsenal of weapons at the disposal of 
those who would level the barriers blocking the road to open occupancy in ^lassa- 
chusetts. 

1960 has also revealed a glaring weakness in the law. Houses and apartments move 
rapidly once they are placed upon the market, more rapidly often than an administra- 
tive agency can act consistent with due process to eliminate discrimination which has 
been complained of. Time and time again the Commission has made a finding that 
discrimination exists only to find that the housing accommodation which w-as the sub- 
ject of its action has been rented or sold to someone other than the aggrieved com- 
plainant People against whom charges of discrimination have been made find it 
greatl}' to their advantage to prolong cases as long as possible in the hope that com- 
plainants will grow weary and seek housing elsewhere. To make more effective the 
legislation which it administers the Commission is this year co-sponsoring with the 
attorney general's ofiice an amendment which would allow the Commission to apply 
for an injunction against the disposal of property after a determination of probable 
cause has been made and imtil such time as a final order of the Commission is issued. 



9 



Selected Case Summaries 

The following cases are illustrative of the problems with which the Commission has 
dealt in its first full year of administering the Fair Housing Law: 

1. A Negro woman went to respondent's real estate agency in response to a sign 
outside his office announcing apartments for rent. She was curtly informed by the 
agent with whom she spoke that he had no apartments he would rent to her and that 
if she desired a place to live she should go to Roxbury. Later that day she called the 
real estate office wathout revealing her identity and over tlie phone was told that there 
were a number of apartments available within her price range. When she volunteered 
the information that she was a Xegro she was told that none of the agency's clients 
would permit it to rent to her. 

During the course of the investigation which followed the filing of a complaint 
with the Commission the agency admitted its discriminatory policy. By way of ex- 
tenuation it stated that it couldn't afford to rent to Xegroes because to do so would 
result in the loss of white tenants. It felt tliere was nothing real estate agents could 
do if property owners refused to have their apartments shown to Xegroes. It felt 
that the law put agents in the middle and that people who had large real estate hold- 
ings would never go along with the law. 

During the conciliation conference the respondent was shown that large real 
estate holders had gone along with the law and not suffered any economic loss. Re- 
spondent agreed to wrhe a letter of apology- to the complainant and to make available 
to her a listing of all vacant apartments handled by its office. The complainant re- 
ported that she had taken the agencv up on its oft'er and had been courteouslv treated. 
(PrH-II-15-C) 

2. A week after two Puerto Rican families moved into an apartment in respon- 
dent's building as tenants at will paying rent montlily, respondent came to them and 
asked them to move because other tenants in the building objected to Puerto Ricans 
living there. Investigation revealed that the chief objection to the two families came 
from a woman tenant who long had a reputation in the building as a trouble maker. 
The landlord who had no personal objections to Puerto Ricans as tenants agreed to 
let the families remain. The Commission offered to use its good offices to persuade 
the other tenants against moving. The landlord was also urged to have the parish 
priest of the Puerto Rican families talk to the families who had threatened to move. 
As a result of the Commission intervention panic was prevented and none of the white 
families who had threatened to move did so. (PrH-II-67-XO & PrH-II-68-XO) 

3. A N^ro complainant whose wife was white filed a complaint stating that after 
his wife had been shown an apartment which she liked and had with her husband 
mailed in a deposit they had been refused the keys to the apartment when the hus- 
band's color was discovered. 

The respondent landlord set up many defenses for refusing the apartment to 
the complainant one of which was that a credit check had not yet been completed. 
When the complainant's credit was established as excellent the respondent tlien based 
his refusal to rent on the basis that the complainant had filed a complaint against him. 
When the Investigating Com.missioner reminded respondent that it was unlawful to 
penalize a person for filing a complaint with the Commission, the respondent agreed 
! to give the complainant the apartment for which he and his wife had applied. When 
t the time for signing the lease arrived the complainant requested that he be allowed 
I to take it home for his wife's signature because she was ill and would be confined to 
bed for three or more days. The landlord refused and insisted that the lease run 
from the first of the month and not from the twenty-second, tlie day on which it was 
to be signed. When complainant finally got to see the apartment he found it covered 
with rust, the refrigerator severely damaged, a large part of the linoleum tile torn 
away, the toilet seat missing and a broken light fixture. The Investigating Commis- 
sioner intervened and required the landlord to make needed repairs to the apartment 
which he had originally promised to make before learning that the complainant was 
Negro. The repairs were made and a check six months later revealed that com- 
plainant and his wife were happily living in their apartment and that an apartment on 
the floor below them had recently been rented to a Xegro couple. (PrH-II-7-C) 



10 



Public Hearings 

Two cases under the Fair Housing Practices Law went to public hearing in 1960. 
They represent the lone failures of the conciliatory process to eliminate housing dis- 
crimination. They represent also only the fourth and fifth complaints to be carried 
to public hearings in the fourteen year history of the MCAD. 
Marshall v. Middlesex Homes, Campanelli Builders, et al. 

A Negro electrical contractor alleged that for a two-year period he had attempted 
to buy a home at respondent's development "Woodvale in Danvers." On each occa- 
sion he was unable to obtain an application blank and upon his last visit as he and 
his wife walked into the model home the agents ran out to avoid doing business with 
him. 

The Investigating Commissioner issued the following findings upon determining that 
probable cause existed to credit the allegations of the complaint : 

Ulysses G. Marshall, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, filed a com- 
plaint as prescribed by law on January 20, 1960 against Middlesex Homes, In- 
corporated, alleging that he was denied the right to purchase a home at the hous- 
ing development known as "Woodvale in Danvers" because of his color in viola- 
tion of General Laws (Ter. Ed.) Chapter 151 B, Section 4, Paragraph 6. The 
complaint was amended to include as respondents Frank Equi, President of Mid- 
dlesex Homes, Inc., Campanelli Builders, Inc., and Alfred Campanelli, President 
of Campanelli Builders, Inc. 

Section 4, Paragraph 6 provided, in part, that it shall be an unlawful practice 
for the owner, lessee, sublessee, assignee, or managing agent of contiguously lo- 
cated housing accommodations or other person having the right of ownership or 
possession to deny to or withhold from any person such accommodations because 
of the race, color, or national origin of such person or persons. 

Section 1, Paragraph 12 of Chapter 151B of the General Laws (Ter. Ed.) 
defines contiguously located housing to be "(1) housing which is offered for sale, 
lease, or rental by a person who owns or at any time has owned, or who controls 
or at any time has controlled, the sale of ten or more housing accommodations 
located on land that is contiguous (exclusive of public streets), and which hous- 
ing is located on such land, or (2) housing which is offered for sale, lease or 
rental and which at any time was one of ten or more lots of a tract whose plan 
has been submitted to a planning board as required by THE SUBDIVISION 
CONTROL LAW, as appears in Section eighty-one K to eighty-one GG inclu- 
sive of Chapter forty-one." 

"Woodvale in Danvers" hereinafter referred to as Woodvale is located in Dan- 
vers, Massachusetts. Plans for the development were first submitted to the Dan- 
vers Planning Board in May of 1957 by Campanelli Builders, Inc. and approved 
by the Board on May 17, 1957 for 100 lots. Four additional sections were ap- 
proved on April 14, 1959 bringing up to approximately 600 the number of lots 
approved. 

The initial investigation of this complaint was conducted by a field representa- 
tive of this Commission between January 21, 1960 and February 12, 1960 and 
additional investigations to determine the truth of complainant's allegations were 
conducted between February 16, 1960 and March 8, 1960, which investigations 
included two informal conferences. During the course of the first of these, Frank 
Equi and Middlesex Homes and their attorneys were given the opportunity to 
present evidence rebutting complainant's allegations. At the second conference 
the complainant and his attorney and representatives of the respondents, Equi 
and Middlesex Homes and their attorneys were given the opportunity to present 
evidence and to cross-examine witnesses. 

The complainant alleges that on January 20, 1960, accompanied by his wife, he 
went to Woodvale for the purpose of buying a home. ^ Upon approaching one of 
respondent Middlesex Homes' two salesmen on duty in the model home he was 
ignored and the salesmen immediately walked out of the building. Complainant 
then drove to the office of Middlesex Homes seeking information and was told 
there was no one who could help him. These events against the backgroimd of 
repeated attempts by complainant since 1957 to become a purchaser of a home in 
Woodvale led the complainant to seek relief before this Commission. 

Respondents take the position that they stand "mute" on the complaint. They 



11 



have made no effort to rebut the construction put upon their salesmen's actions on 
January 20, 1960 by complainant that the salesmen walked out of the model home 
to avoid taking an application from a Negro. 

During this time complainant made known his continuing desire to purchase a 
home at Woodvale and he still desires to make such a purchase. 

It is significant to note that no attempt was made to answer any of com- 
plainant's allegations made at the informal conference or to explain the sales- 
men's ignoring of complainant the day he last went to Woodvale. Mr. McMillan, 
one of the salesmen, was not asked by respondent to explain his actions even 
though he was present at the hearing. 

There are no denials to any of the allegations in the original complaint. In 
addition, complainant at the informal conference of Alarch 8, 1960 asked if re- 
spondent Middlesex Homes would give the complainant the usual application to 
purchase a home at Woodvale and if such application would be processed in the 
usual manner. Middlesex Homes replied that they stood mute. Complainant 
offered to answer all questions respondent might ask him as tO' his eligibility to 
purchase a home. Middlesex Homes repeated that they stood mute. 

The Commission has before it the uncontested sworn testimony of the com- 
plainant that he went to Woodvale for the purpose of purchasing a home and that 
upon approaching a salesman for Middlesex Homes the salesman ignored him 
and walked out of the model home. This ignoring of complainant constituted re- 
fusal to consider him as an applicant to purchase a home. This refusal is clearly 
a denial of housing accommodations under the statute. So too is the refusal on 
March 8, 1960 to give or offer to give complainant an application to purchase a 
home. 

The unlawful discriminatory practices here alleged are of a continuing nature. 
The alleged unlawful policy of barring Negroes from Woodvale is not an isolated 
act which occurred on a particular day. It is, as the complainant alleges and as 
his statements during the investigation indicate, a policy of long standing — a 
policy which has existed and continues to exist. 

The failure to assert its willingness to consider complainant as an applicant on 
his merits was part of a pattern of evasion and delay obviously pursued by re- 
spondent. It is not the course ordinarily adopted by a respondent who is unjustly 
accused. 

If by ignoring complainant's attempts to become a purchaser respondent could 
avoid its statutory duty the law would be rendered completely ineffectual. It 
would result in its emasculation. 

I deem it a fair and reasonable exercise of the power of amendment provided 
in the law and the Rules of Practice and Procedure of this Commission to amend 
the above entitled complaint to conform to the facts adduced in the course of my 
investigation as Investigating Commissioner to specify that Campanelli Builders, 
Inc. are the owners of the development known as Woodvale in Danvers and that 
Alfred Campanelli is its owner and further that Middlesex Homes, Inc. is the 
exclusive agent of Campenelli Builders in Woodvale and that Frank Equi is Presi- 
dent of Middlesex Homes, Inc. 

The respondent Campanelli having made Middlesex its exclusive agent is re- 
sponsible for the agent's unlawful rejection of complainant. 

I find, therefore, that the complainant has been discriminated against by the 
respondent because of his color; that such discrimination is of a continuing na- 
ture; and that there is probable cause to credit the allegations of the complaint. 

Complainant anxious that respondent might sell all the houses in the development 
before the Commission could hold a public hearing, petitioned the Superior Court for 
an investigation. The Court was asked in a petition in which the Commission through 
the Attorney General joined, to enjoin the respondents "from selling, encumbering, or 
in any way making unavailable for the petitioner one or more of the houses located 
in Woodvale in Danvers until a final order is issued by the MCAD dismissing from 
its docket the [complainant's] complaint against the respondents." 

The petition for the injunction was denied on the grounds that no provisions for 
such a restraining order was provided for in the Fair Housing Law. 

After five days of public hearings the Commission issued the following order : 

Upon all the evidence at the hearing herein the Massachusetts Commission 



12 



Against Discrimination, by Presiding Hearing Commissioner Chairman Mildred 
H. Mahoney and Hearing Commissioner Ben G. Shapiro, finds that the respon- 
dents Middlesex Homes, Inc., Frank Equi, President, Middlesex Homes, Inc., 
and Campanelli Builders, Inc. herein have engaged in unlawful discriminatory 
practices as defined in Chapter 151B, Section 4, sub-section 6 of the Massachusetts 
General Laws, and that the respondent Alfred Campanelli, President of Campa- 
nelli Builders, Inc. has not engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices as there- 
in defined, and states its findings of fact as follows : 

FINDINGS OF FACT 
The Complainant 

1. The complainant, Ulysses G. Marshall, is a Negro, who on January 18, 
1960, sought to purchase a home located in the housing development situated in 
Danvers, Massachusetts, and known as "Woodvale in Danvers". 

The Housing Accommodations 

2. "Woodvale in Danvers" is a real estate development located in Danvers, 
Massachusetts, and consisting of no less than two hundred house lots that are 
contiguous, exclusive of public streets, as set out in a sub-division control plan 
filed with the Clerk of the Danvers Planning Board on May 15, 1959' by the re- 
spondent Campanelli Builders, Inc. 

3. The lots are not sold separately but are sold only together with the houses 
thereon. On January 18, 1960, there were a number of houses in the development 
unsold. 

4. The prices for a home in "Woodvale in Danvers" start at $14,900. with 
special terms for veterans. 

The Respondents 

5. The respondents Middlesex Homes, Inc., and Campanelli Builders, Inc. 
are both corporations duly organized and existing under the laws of Massachu- 
setts. The respondent Frank Equi is President of Middlesex Homes, Inc. The 
respondent Alfred Campanelli is President of Campanelli Brothers, Inc., also a 
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Massachusetts. 

The respondent Campanelli Builders, Inc. is a substantial real estate developer 
in the business of purchasing substantial tracts of land, sub-dividing the same 
into lots, then building and selling . homes thereon to the public. Campanelli 
Builders, Inc. is the developer and present owner of "Woodvale in Danvers". 
One of its officers is authorized to execute the agreements for the purchase and 
sale of "Woodvale" houses sold to members of the public. 

Middlesex Homes, Inc. is the exclusive sales agent of Campanelli Builders, 
Inc. in respect to "Woodvale in Danvers" and other developments owned by 
Campanelli Builders, Inc. Middlesex Homes, Inc. has the sole right to sell the 
homes in the "Woodvale in Danvers" development to the public. It sells the 
homes through such media as newspaper advertisements, road signs, brochures, 
and particularly through the display of so-called "model homes" located within 
the development. The model homes are staffed, to the extent that their numbers 
permit, with salesmen in the employ of Middlesex Homes, Inc., who are author- 
ized to show the property to prospective customers and to discuss with them the 
terms and conditions of purchase. The model homes are open for inspection by 
the general public, whose patronage is solicited by newspaper advertising. The 
model homes are furnished by Aliddlesex Homes, Inc., whose salesmen, in addi- 
tion to selling, have the managerial duties of cleaning the model homes, straighten- 
ing them up and otherwise performing general housekeeping chores, and opening 
and closing them to the public. 

Middlesex Homes, Inc. has the practice of using one of the model sales homes 
within the development as a temporary sales office. It maintains a permanent 
sales office in Woburn, Massachusetts. 

The respondent Frank Equi, President of Middlesex Homes, Inc._ is the active 
managing head of the company and possesses detailed knowledge of its day-to-day 
workings. He has had extensive experience in servicing large real estate sub- 
division developments in Massachusetts. 



13 



6. At least 70 to 80 houses at "Woodvale in Danvers" for sale at the time 
of the matters complained of were, at least in part, covered by an outstanding 
commitment issued after October 1, 1957, by the Federal Housing Administra- 
tion. By virtue of such commitment, acquisition of such housing accommodations 
may be financed in whole or in part by a loan, whether or not secured by a mort- 
gage, the payment of which is guaranteed or insured by the Federal Housing 
Administration, an agency of the Federal Government created by the National 
Housing Act, as amended, (12 U.S.C. Chapter 13). 

7. The "sponsor" of the commitment applications for the realty in question 
was the respondent Campanelli Builders, Inc. The applications for "Woodvale" 
commitments were often prepared for the lending institution involved by an em- 
ployee of Campanelli Builders, Inc. Of the commitments in question as of Janu- 
ary 18, 1960, there were at least three lots in the "Woodvale in Danvers" devel- 
opment then unsold which were covered by conditional commitments. 

The Unlawful Discriminatory Practices 

8. The record does not support the allegations that the respondent Alfred 
Campanelli, President of Campanelli Brothers, Inc., has engaged in unlawful 
discriminatory practices as defined in Chapter 151 B, Section 4, Sub-section 6, of 
the Massachusetts General Laws. 

9. On January 18, 1960, and on divers occasions prior thereto, as the result 
of advertising in Boston newspapers, the complainant, Ulysses G. Marshall, a 
bona fide would-be purchaser, sought to purchase housing accommodations in the 
housing development known as "Woodvale in Danvers", situated in Danvers, 
Massachusetts, and visited one of the model homes in the development for that 
purpose. On January 18, 1960, and on divers occasions prior and subsequent 
thereto, such accommodations were denied and withheld from the complainant 
because of his color. The denial and withholding was constituted, in part, by the 
refusal of certain employees of the respondent Middlesex Homes, Inc. to show 
the complainant homes within the development or in any way to deal with him 
as a prospective customer on those occasions when he visited both the model home 
and after he departed. 

10. The respondent Campanelli Builders, Inc. has discriminated and is dis- 
criminating against the complainant by denying and withholding from him, be- 
cause of his color, housing accommodations whether or not publicly assisted, 
located in "Woodvale in Danvers". 

The discriminatory actions of the persons acting in an agency capacity for the 
respondent Campanelli Builders, Inc., as further set out herein, were brought to 
the attention of Michael Campanelli, its Vice President, who at no time subse- 
quently by any action sought to disaffirm these discriminatory actions, and whose 
attorneys and agents during the course of investigation and hearing on the matter 
herein complained of have consistently "stood mute" when asked if Negroes gen- 
erally, and the complainant, Ulysses G. Marshall in particular, could purchase 
housing accommodations in "Woodvale in Danvers". 

The respondents Middlesex Homes, Inc. and Frank Equi, President of Middle- 
sex Homes, Inc. have discriminated and are discriminating against the complainant 
by refusing to allow him, because of his color, the opportunity to attempt to pur- 
chase a home in "Woodvale in Danvers". The discriminatory actions of the 
persons acting in an agency capacity for these respondents were brought to the 
attention of the respondent Frank Equi, who at no time subsequently by any action 
sought to disaffirm these discriminatory acts, and whom himself, and whose at- 
torneys and employees during the course of investigation and hearing on the 
matter herein complained of have consistently "stood mute" when asked if Negroes 
generally, and the complainant, Ulysses G. Marshall in particular, could purchase 
housing accommodations in "Woodvale in Danvers". 

11. The respondents Campanelli Builders, Inc., Middlesex Homes, Inc., and 
Frank Equi, President of Middlesex Homes, Inc. have accorded to the com- 
plainant, Ulysses G. Marshall, upon the occasion of his attempt to purchase a 
home in "Woodvale in Danvers" different treatment from that customarily ac- 
corded white applicants. White applicants at the model homes are dealt with by 
the salesmen and as prospective customers, are given appropriate application forms 
to fill out, and are otherwise regarded as a source of actual or potential sales. 
On the other hand these salesmen evaded as much as was in their power making 
contact with the complainant. 



14 



12. The respondents Campanelli Builders, Inc., Middlesex Homes, Inc., and 
Frank Equi, President of Middlesex Homes, Inc. have consistently refused, and 
still consistently refuse, to accept or process the application of the complainant. 
Ulysses G. Marshall, to purchase a home in "Woodvale in Danvers", which re- 
fusals_ are based solely on Ulysses G. Marshall's color. During the course of the 
investigation and hearing on the matters herein complained of this Commission, 
the complainant himself, and his attorney have consistently asked if the respondents 
would accept a proffer of the complainant to purchase a home in the develop- 
ment, to which proffer the respondents consistently "stood mute". 

13. The refusal of the respondent Campanelli Builders, Inc. to sell the com- 
plainant Ulysses G. Marshall a home, and the refusal of the respondent Campa- 
nelli Builders, Inc., Middlesex Homes, Inc., and Frank Equi, President of Mid- 
dlesex Homes, Inc. to accept or process the complainant's, Ulysses G. Marshall's, 
application to purchase a home in "Woodvale in Danvers" is part of a studied 
pattern of discouraging and avoiding the application of Negro applicants for the 
purchase of homes in "Woodvale in Danvers". 

ORDER 

Upon the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and pursuant to Section 5, 
Chapter 151B, of the General Laws of Massachusetts, it is hereby ORDERED, 
by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 

That the complaint against the respondent Alfred Campanelli, President, 
Campanelli Brothers, Inc.. be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. 

That the respondents Campanelli Builders, Inc., Middlesex Homes, Inc., their 
officers, directors, agents, successors, and assigns, and that the respondent Frank 
Equi, President of Middlesex Homes, Inc., shall: 

1. Cease and desist from: 

a. Denying to and withholding from complainant, Ulysses G. Marshall, 
the opportunity to purchase an available home of his choice located in the develop- 
ment known as "Woodvale in Danvers" situated in Danvers, Massachusetts. 

b. Giving consideration to the factors of race, creed, color or national 
origin, in seeking application for the purchase of homes in "Woodvale in Danvers" 
or other developments owned, controlled, or serviced by them which are subject 
to the Massachusetts Law Against Discrimination. 

c. Giving consideration to the factors of race, creed, color or national 
origin in showing model homes or other homes in the "Woodvale in Danvers" 
or other real estate developments owned, controlled, and serviced by them which 
are subject to the Massachusetts Law Against Discrimination. 

2. Take the following affirmative action which, in the judgment of the Massa- 
chusetts Commission Against Discrimination, will effectuate the purposes of the 
Massachusetts Law Against Discrimination : 

a. With respect to the housing accommodations sought by the com- 
plainant : 

( i) The respondent Campanelli Builders, Inc. shall within thirty (30) 
days of the date of service of this Order set aside for and make 
available to the complainant an available home of his choice 
located in "Woodvale in Danvers", and 

(ii) The respondent Middlesex Homes, Inc., shall within thirty (30) 
days of the date of service of this Order prepare, and respondent, 
Campanelli Builders, Inc., shall within thirty (30) days of the 
date of service of this Order execute, a purchase and sales agree- 
ment for an available home of the complainant's choice in the 
"Woodvale in Danvers" development, and shall present the same 
to the complainant. The complainant shall have a reasonable 
amount of time within which to accept or reject said purchase 
and sale agreement for an available home of his choice in the 
"Woodvale in Danvers" development. 

b. If the complainant accepts such said offer to purchase, and the house 
chosen by him is not ready for occupancy, the complainant shall be accorded sub- 
stantially the same privileges, services, benefits, guarantees, concessions, accorded 
to the most favorable among other purchasers of unfinished homes at "Woodvale 
in Danvers". 



15 



3. Apply forthwith the same standards of evaluation to all applicants for 
homes at "Woodvale in Danvers" and other developments owTied by the respon- 
dent, Campanelli Builders, Inc., which are subject to the Massachusetts Law 
Against Discrimination without regard to race, creed, color or national origin. 

4. Issue forthwith written instructions in a form satisfactory to the Com- 
mission to all officers, directors, agents and employees of Campanelli Builders, 
Inc., Middlesex Homes, Inc., and to all persons now engaged or employed or who 
may hereafter be employed or engaged within one year of the date of this Order, 
by these respondents, explaining the requirement and objectives of the Law 
Against Discrimination and advising each such person of his individual responsi- 
bility for compliance with the Law Against Discrimination and his obligation to 
make such compliance meaningful and effective. Copies of such instructions signed 
by the said persons individually and acknowledging receipt and understanding 
thereof shall be transmitted to the Commission by the respondents within thirty 
(30) days of the date of the service of this Order. 

5. Post forthwith copies of the foregoing statement conspicuously in easily 
accessible and well-lighted places at the model homes at "Woodvale in Danvers" 
and other developments owned or controlled by the respondent, Campanelli 
Builders, Inc., or serviced by the respondent, Middlesex Homes, Inc., or the re- 
spondent, Frank Equi, President of Middlesex Homes, Inc. which are subject to 
the Massachusetts Law Against Discrimination where they may be readily ob- 
served by those seeking to purchase housing accommodations located therein, 

6. Include forthwith in all advertising of the houses at "Woodvale in Dan- 
vers" and at other developments which are subject to the Massachusetts Law 
Against Discrimination owned or controlled by the respondent Campanelli Build- 
ers, Inc., or serviced by the respondent Middlesex Homes, Inc., or the respon- 
dent Frank Equi, President of ^liddlesex Homes, Inc., by newspaper, floor plan, 
pamphlet, booklet, sign or otherwise, a statement, in a form satisfactory to the 
Commission, giving notice that "Woodvale in Danvers" and said other develop- 
ments, are subject to the said Massachusetts Law Against Discrimination, and 
that the houses therein are available for sale without reference to race, creed, 
color or national origin. 

7. Notify the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination at its office 
at 41 Tremont Street, Boston 8. Massachusetts, in writing within forty (40) days 
of the date of service of this Order, as to steps respondents have taken to comply 
with each item of this Order. 

Dated : 22 August 1960 

Boston, Massachusetts 
Fowler v. A. J. Colangelo et al. 

A Negro contract analyst employed by the Air Force sought to rent an apartment 
in a new development five minutes from his place of work. He was told that he was 
unacceptable as a tenant because he was unmarried. Investigation revealed that nine 
male bachelors were in residence in the development and that several others had ap- 
plied for and been offered apartments. A finding of probable cause was made to 
credit the allegations of discrimination because of color. All subsequent attempts at 
conciliation failed and the complaint was noticed for formal hearing. After the notice 
for a formal hearing was served the respondent went into Superior Court seeking a 
declaratory judgment that the Fair Housing Law of 1959 was unconstitutional and 
that the Commission be enjoined from proceeding to a formal hearing until the ques- 
tion of constitutionality was disposed of by the courts of the Commonwealth. The 
request for an injunction was denied and the respondents were required to exhaust 
their statutory remedies before the Commission. A formal public hearing was sched- 
uled by the Commission for early January 1961. 

Regulation 

In an effort to make more widely known the remedies under the Fair Housing Law 
the Commission adopted the following regulation: 

Every owner, lessee, sublessee, assignee or managing agent of publicly assisted 
or multiple dwelling or contiguously located housing accommodations or other 
persons subject to General Laws, Chapter 151B, Section 4, Paragraph 6, shall 
post and maintain in a well-lighted, easily accessible place in the office or other 



16 



place of business where negotiations or agreements are customarily made for the 
renting, leasing or purchasing of housing accommodations, a notice to be prepared 
by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination which shall set forth 
certain relevant information which the Commission deems necessary to explain 
the Fair Housing Practices Law and to further its purposes. In housing develop- 
ments this notice shall be posted in all model homes. In newly constructed apart- 
ment houses, this notice shall be posted in all model apartments. 
Beginning early in 1961 the Commission will distribute the following notices to be 
posted in accordance with the foregoing regulation : 

THE FAIR HOUSING LAW 

The law provides that with respect to a multiple dwelling as defined by Chapter 
151B, Section 1 and Section 4, of the General Laws as amended, 
WE AIAY NOT 

(1) REFUSE TO RENT OR LEASE to any person or group of persons 
any apartment BECAUSE OF THE RACE, CREED, COLOR, OR 
NATIONAL ORIGIN of such person or persons. 

(2) DISCRIMINATE against any person because of his race, creed, color, 
or national origin, IN THE TERMS, CONDITIONS OR PRIVI- 
LEGES of our accommodations OR IN THE FURNISHING OF 
FACILITIES OR SERVICES in connection therewith. 

(3) CAUSE TO BE MADE ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL INQUIRY 
OR RECORD CONCERNING THE R.\CE, CREED, COLOR, OR 
NATIONAL ORIGIN of a person seeking to rent or lease any such 
accommodation. 

Posting of this notice in a well-lighted, easily accessible place in the office, 
model apartment and/or other place of business where negotiations or agreements 
are customarily made for the renting or leasing of apartments is required by the 
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION, 41 
Tremont Street, Boston. 

WHERE COMPLAINTS MAY BE FILED 

All complaints must be made under oath and may be filed in the office of the 
Commission Against Discrimination, 41 Tremont Street, Boston, CApitol 7-3111. 
The Housing Accommodations in This Development 
Are Covered by 



THE FAIR HOUSING LAW 

(Chapter 15 IB of the General Laws, as amended) 
ACCORDING TO THIS LAW WE MAY NOT 

(1) DENY HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS in this development to any 
person BECAUSE OF THE RACE, CREED, COLOR, OR NA- 
TIONAL ORIGIN of such person. 

(2) DISCRIMINATE against anv person because of his race, creed, color, 
or national origin, IN THE TERMS, CONDITIONS OR PRIVI- 
LEGES of our accommodations OR IN THE FURNISHING OF 
FACILITIES OR SERVICES in connection therewith. 

(3) CAUSE TO BE MADE ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL INQUIRY 
OR RECORD concerning the race, creed, color, or national origin of 
any person seeking any such accommodation. 

Posting of this notice in a well-lighted, easily accessible place in the office, 
model home, and/or other place of business where negotiations or agreements are 
customarily made for the renting, leasing or purchasing of housing accommoda- 
tions is required bv the MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST 
DISCRIMINATION, 41 Tremont Street, Boston. 

WHERE COAIPLAINTS MAY BE FILED 

All complaints must be made under oath and may be filed in the office of the 
Commission Against Discrimination, 41 Tremont Street, Boston, CApitol 7-3111. 



17 



Real Estate OflSces as Places of Public Accommodation 

Under the Attorney General's 1959 ruling classifying real estate offices as places 
of public accommodations brokers are prohibited from complying with discriminatory 
orders given to them by principals concerning properties covered by the Fair Housing 
Law. As to properties not covered by that Law the duties of brokers was set forth 
in a case in which a real estate agent had refused to take a Negro customer to see 
the site of a home whose owner had instructed the agent he would not sell to Negroes. 

In his finding of probable cause the investigating commissioner stated : 

"The Attorney General has ruled that a real estate agency is a place of public 
accommodation. As such it may not discriminate because of race, religion or color 
among members of the general public seeking its services. To refuse, as you did 
here, to show a property listed by you because of the color of a customer is to 
violate the civil rights laws of the Commonwealth. No instruction given you by 
a property owner can supercede your duty to show property when requested. 
This does not mean, of course, that you are required to take a customer upon 
the grounds or into the home of a property owner who has instructed you that 
his gates are closed to members of certain religious or ethnic groups. But you 
are required to show the prospective house buyer the outside of the house as you 
were requested to do in this case by the complainants." 

Non-Regulatory Activities 

MCAD-MAREB Housing Conference 

While many landlords and real estate brokers continue to evade their responsi- 
bilities under the law, it is heartening to note the support which the Commission has 
received from one of the housing industries' leading professional organizations. In 
April the Commission co-sponsored with the Massachusetts Association of Real Estate 
Boards an all day conference on housing discrimination at the Boston College Law 
School. This conference, the first such in the country, we hope may serve as a model 
to other states of how cooperatively anti-discrimination agencies and realtors may 
tackle the North's most desperate civil rights problem. 

The most concise summary of the meeting's conclusions was furnished by the Dean 
of the Boston College Law^ School. We reprint here in its entirety the consensus 
which was drawn up at the end of the conference by Reverend Robert F. Drinan, S.J. : 

"Massachusetts has led all other states in legislation against discrimination in 
employment, education, public accommodations, public and publicly assisted hous- 
ing. Massachusetts is among the first to enact a law to forbid discrimination in 
private housing. 

"This new legislation, which became effective in August 1959, is a result of 
the statement made by the United States Commission on Civil Rights to the effect 
that housing is the only commodity in American society that is not freely avail- 
able. 

"At this unique meeting today — the first of its kind in American history — 
an average of 3000 realtors is represented. This group is the aristocracy of those 
engaged in real estate transactions since there are 30,000 individuals in Massachu- 
setts who are either brokers or landlords with more than three tenants. 

POINTS OF AGREEMENT 

"1. It is clear that there is indignation on one side and anxiety on the other. 
The indignation of some minority group sometimes leads to irresponsible allega- 
tions that discrimination exists where, in fact, this is not true. It is undeniable, 
however, that there is a great insecurity felt among some minority groups about 
the possibility of getting housing in areas where this group has not resided before. 
There is a de facto pattern of segregated housing from which one can draw a 
legitimate inference that discrimination does in fact exist. 

"As a response to this indignation there is a real anxiety on the part of the 
brokers and others to be absolutely fair and open concerning this problem. 

"2. There is consensus in this group that integrated housing does in fact work. 
After a temporary period of transition where incidents may occur integration 
thereafter has no difficulty. 



18 



"3. The code of the National Association of Real Estate Boards contains a 
pledge that each realtor will 'act fairly toward all in the spirit of the Golden 
Rule.' The new law in Massachusetts, therefore, does nothing but implement the 
ethical directive binding on all realtors. It is, therefore, a cause of gratification 
that the realtors have spontaneously participated in a program where this ethical 
imperative of their profession can be discussed. 

"4. The consensus of the group seems to be that the average Negro who re- 
ceives a salary between $5,000 and $8,000 a year is effectively excluded from ob- 
taining better housing. 55,000 Negroes live in Roxbury. The top economic level 
of this group can get to the suburbs. The poor cannot afford better housing than 
they now have, but ever increasing numbers in the middle economic third feel 
deeply that they cannot obtain the housing they desire in all-white communities 
in the suburbs. 

"5. The position of the realtor is particularly difficult since as an agent of the 
vendor he must carry out the wishes of his principal. He cannot be expected to 
educate his principal that discrimination is wrong nor can he be expected to dis- 
associate himself from a vendor who will not sell to a non- white vendee. 

"6. The consensus of all of the study groups indicates that the Fair Housing 
Committees now operating in the communities surrounding Boston should be con- 
tinued and intensified. They should conduct meetings at the local level with the 
real estate brokers comparable to the meeting held here today. 

"7. The participants of this conference are agreed that education plus enforce- 
ment is required for effective elimination of discrimination. Education without 
enforcement tends to degenerate into pious platitudes while enforcement without 
education will, in the long run, be ineffective. It was the feeling of the conferees 
that a larger appropriation for the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimi- 
nation is certainly needed. This public body with three commissioners, six investi- 
gators and five secretaries cannot be expected to carry out and perform with its 
present budget the great purposes of the ever increasing laws for which it has 
responsibility. 

"8. It was felt that regular conferences between public officials, realtors and 
minority groups would be very helpful. It was felt that exploration of the de- 
teriorating areas of the citj^ and method of integrating minorities into the suburbs 
is such a complex question that continuous study is required in order to under- 
stand it. It was felt also that the evidence which shows that property values do 
not decrease when minority groups move into the neighborhood should be thor- 
oughly studied and understood. 

AREAS OF CONFLICT 

"1. The conferees were in dispute as to how far the brokers' ethical responsi- 
bility extends when he is involved in a situation where the seller of the property 
refuses to sell to a member of the minority group. The broker is in a partic- 
ularly crucial and vulnerable position. The brokers felt that they should not be 
expected to be apostles of equality in housing if this would mean a substantial 
loss in their business. There was disagreement also about whether the realtors 
should make it unprofessional conduct to take a listing from another broker 
whose principals refuse to sell to a Negro. 

"2. The evidence of discrimination in connection with multiple listings was 
in total conflict. 

"3. While some evidence of discrimination existed in connection with the sum- 
mer rentals of cottages not enough facts were at hand in order to make any 
valid conclusions. 

"4. There was no uniform opinion as to whether or not Massachusetts law 
should be extended to the individual property owner. Many people felt that the 
present law should be given the opportunity to prove itself and that education 
about the evils of discrimination in housing should precede any further extension 
of the law to cover individual property owners. 

"5. Some evidence was given that Negro and other minority groups desire to 
remain in a particular section of the city and that they, themselves, are to some 
extent the creators of the 'ghettos' which it is the policy of the law to eliminate. 



19 



CONCLUSION 

"Since the beginning of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 
on August 21, 1946, a total of 3,236 complaints have been processed. These com- 
plaints have been based on alleged discrimination because of race, color, religious 
creed, national origin, ancestry and age. It is to be hoped that the Massachu- 
setts Commission Against Discrimination, under the most able direction of Mrs. 
Alildred Mahoney, will continue its excellent work so that eventually all dis- 
crimination in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be eliminated." 



Broker's Institute Meetings 

In addition to its joint sponsorship of the Boston College conference the Massachu- 
setts Association of Real Estate Boards through its Broker's Institute Councils has 
arranged for Commission members to meet with realtors in all parts of the Common- 
wealth. These meetings, we feel, have done much to smooth the social change which 
the fair housing legislation was designated to effectuate. 



Fair Housing Practices Committees 

In our last annual report we praised the activities of local Fair Housing Practices 
Committees in eleven cities and towns. We are happy to note that their tribe increases 
and citizenry organized in their commitment to welcome into their neighborhoods all 
people of good character regardless of their ethnic origins or religious beliefs are now 
to be found in Arlington, Belmont, Braintree, Brookline, Cambridge, Concord, Fram- 
ingham, Ashland, Haverhill, Lexington, Lincoln, Natick, Nashoba (Stow, Littleton, 
Boxboro, Acton), Needham, Newton, Sudbury, Waltham, Watertown, Wayland, 
Wellesley, Weston, and on the North Shore. 

Interagency Cooperation 

Board of Registration of Real Estate Brokers and Salesmen 

The Commission is authorized by law "to obtain upon request and utilize the serv- 
ices of all executive departments and agencies." On January 1, 1960 real estate 
brokers were, for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth, required to obtain 
a license for the carrying out of their business. The MCAD entered into negotiations 
with the agency charged with issuing licences. 

Chairman Joseph Mulhern of the Board of Registration of Real Estate Brokers 
and Salesmen agreed to issue the following notice to all licensees : 

"The public policy of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as expressed in the 
legislative enactments of the General Court and in opinions of the Attorney Gen- 
eral directs non-discrimination in the sale and rental of real property. 

"Two statutes (Chapter 426 of the Acts of 1957 and Chapter 239 of the Acts 
of 1959) forbid discrimination because of race, creed, color or national origin in 
the rental of apartments in buildings containing three or more rental units and 
in the sale of homes in developments of ten or more contiguous housing accommo- 
dations. 

"The Attorney General has ruled that a real estate office is a place of public 
accommodation and, therefore, is covered by the restrictions against discrimina- 
tion spelled out in Chapter 272 of the General Laws, Section 92A and 98. Under 
this ruling a licensed real estate agent, salesman or broker may not refuse his 
services to or in any way discriminate against any person because of that person's 
race, religious creed or color. 

"This Board expects all persons licensed by it to conduct their business in a 
manner consistent with the above-mentioned laws and ruling. 

"Any instance in which the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 
reports to us a continued violation of the civil rights of the Commonwealth after 
it has issued a cease and desist order against such violation will subject the vio- 
lator to possible suspension or revocation of his license." 



20 



Nezv Legislation 
Mortgage Loans 

In March 1960 the General Court enacted a bill which makes it unlawful "for any 
person engaged in the business of granting mortgage loans to discriminate against 
any person in the granting of any mortgage loan, including but not limited to the 
interest rate, terms or duration of such mortgage loan, because of his race, color, re- 
ligious creed, national origin, or ancestry." 

Public Housing 

The methods of tenant selection in use by various Public Housing Authorities as 
well as the degree of integration of non-white families housed in their developments 
are surveyed each year. 

This year the policies of twenty-seven Public Housing Authorities were examined. 
Ten of these have been surveyed in consecutive preceding years so that a com- 
parative set of figures might indicate the pattern of integration. 

The comparative figures for the ten Housing Authorities previously surveyed follow : 



BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 


1\ 0, OJ Units 


iV 


of No 


yi-Whitc 


Fuifiilics 






1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


Broadway 


941 


10 


12 


14 


13 


Camden Street 


72 


72 


72 


71 


71 


Commonwealth 


639 


18 


18 


17 


18 


Faneuil 


258 


2 


2 


2 


2 


Fairmount 


909 




u 




A 
\J 


u 


Archdale 


288 


8 


5 


6 


5 


Orient Heights 


353 


4 


5 


4 


5 


Gallivan Boulevard 


251 














Franklin Field 


504 


19 


20 


20 


20 


South Street 


132 














Total 


3,640 


133 


134 


134 


134 


Federal Program 




1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


Charlestown 


1,117 





3 


3 


4 


Mission Hill 


1,019 














Lenox Street* 


306 


306 


302 


300 


305 


Orchard Park 


745 


93 


100 


107 


143 


South End 


498 


241 


253 


255 


259 


Heath Street 


405 


13 


15 


12 


2 


East Boston 


411 














Franklin Hill Avenue 


372 


14 


16 


17 


15 


Whittier Street 


197 


180 


185 


186 


188 


Washington and Beech Streets 


274 


4 


3 


3 


2 


Mission Hill Extension 


567 


314 


386 


440 


476 


Bromley Park 


690 


110 


158 


163 


171 


Columbia Point 


1,407 


103 


137 


144 


166 


Old Harbor Village 


989 














Old Colony 


847 


3 


2 


2 


2 


Total 


9,844 


1,381 


1,560 


1,632 


1,733 



*Lenox Street Development has one white family in occupancy. 



BROCKTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 


No. of Units 


No. 


of Non-White 


Families 






1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 




283 


6 


6 


5 


6 


Federal Program 




1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 




100 


7 


9 


7 


7 



21 



CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 


No. of Units 


No. 


of Non-White Families 






1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


Woodrow Wilson Court 


69 


3 


2 


2 


2 


Jefferson Park 


109 


4 




9 


11 


Lincoln Way 


60 


3 


2 


2 


2 


Roosevelt Towers 


228 


9 


23 


20 


20 


Jackson Gardens 


46 


1 











Jefferson Park Extension 


200 


7 


11 


11 


13 


Total 


712 


27 


44 


46 


48 


Federal Program 




1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


W^ashington Elms 


324 


38 


38 


37 


39 


Putnam Gardens 


1 07 




43 


44 


45 


New Towne Court 


294 


8 


10 


Q 


1 9 


Corcoran 


152 


4 


3 


4 


4 


Total 


893 


92 


94 


94 


100 


FALMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 






State Program 


No. of Umt.% 


No. 


of Non-White Families 






1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


Amvets Avenue 


50 


3 


3 


4 


6 


Mayflower 


24 














Total 


74 


3 


3 


4 


6 


HOLYOKE HOUSING AUTHORITY 






State Program 


No. of Units 


No. 


of Non-White 


Families 






1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


Beaudoin Village 


219 


1 


2 


1 


8 


Minnie R. Dwight Village 


42 














Total 


261 


1 


2 


1 


8 


Federal Program 




1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


Jackson Parkway 


219 











1 


Lyman Terrace 


167 




1 


1 


3 


Henry Toepfert Apartments 


98 








1 


5 


Total 


484 


1 


1 


2 


9 


NEW BEDFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY 






State Program 


No. of Units 


No. 


of Non 


-White Families 






1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


Parkdale 


100 


3 


3 


2 


3 


Blue Meadows 


150 


13 


13 


14 


14 


Nashmont 


80 














Crestview-Westwood (Elderly) 


75 


2 


2 


2 


2 


Total 


405 


18 


18 


18 


19 


Federal Program 




1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


Bay Village 


200 


119 


136 


139 


143 


Presidential Heights 


200 


3 


1 





2 


Brickenwood 


300 


24 


18 


18 


18 


Westlawn 


200 


34 


36 


41 


42 


Total 


900 


180 


191 


198 


205 



22 



PITTSFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1957 1958 1959 1960 
Wilson Park 126 

Federal Program 

Victory Hill 99 2 2 



PLYMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1957 1958 1959 1960 
Olmstead Terrace and Standish Court 40 1 



SPRINGFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 


No. of Units 


No 


of Non-White 


Families 






1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


Reed Village 


200 


13 


13 


15 


15 


Robinson Gardens 


136 


6 


6 


3 


12 


Duggan Park 


196 


6 


5 


10 


12 


Carpe Diem 


75 


1 


2 


2 


1 


Total 


607 


26 


26 


30 


40 


Federal Program 




1957 


1958 






Lucy Mallory Village 


34 


3 


Closed 







WORCESTER HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 


No. of Units 


No. cf Non-White 


Families 






1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


Curtis Apartments 


390 


3 


3 


7 


99 


Lakeside Apartments 


204 








1 





George F. Booth Memorial 












Apartments 


75 














Total 


669 


3 


3 


8 


99 


Federal Program 




1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


Great Brook Valley Gardens 


600 


20 


20 


15 


17 



The results of the survey of the additional seventeen Public Housing Authorities 
made this year is tabulated belov^ : 



ARLINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1960 

Menotomy 176 

Housing for Elderly 56 

Total 232 



State Program 
General Patton 



BARNSTABLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non-White 

40 



Families 
1960 
4 



23 



BROOKLINE HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White 



Egmont Street Development 
High Street Development 
Marion Street Development 

Total 



114 
117 
60 

291 



Families 
1960 








CHELSEA HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of N on-White 



Federal Program 



294 
200 



Families 
1960 




EVERETT HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White 

428 



Families 
1960 




FRAMINGHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White 



Federal Program 



210 
125 



Families 
1960 
1 



LAWRENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 

Stadium Courts 
Hancock Courts 

Total 
Federal Program 
Merrimack Courts 
Beacon Courts 

Total 



No. of Units 

249 
188 

437 



283 
203 

486 



No. of Non-White Families 
1960 
1 
3 

4 

1960 
4 
1 



LOWELL HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 

Gorham Street 
Lakeview Avenue 
Aiken Street 
Concord Street 
Hale Street 

Total 
Federal Program 
North Common Village 
Chelmsford Street 
Bishop Markham Village 



No. of Units 

276 
12 
20 
16 
15 

339 



523 
155 

361 



No. of Non-White Families 
1960 
1 





1 

1960 






Total 



1,039 







24 



State Program 
Federal Program 



MALDEN HOUSING AUTHORITY 
No. of Units 

282 
250 



No. of Non-White Families 

ma 

2 
10 



State Program 



Federal Program 



MEDFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY 
No. of Units 

150 
ISO 



No. of Non-White Families 
1960 
2 



State Program 



Federal Program 



REVERE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1960 

242 
100 



State Program 

Mystic River 
Clarendon Hill 
Capon Court 

Total 
Federal Program 
Mystic View 
Highland Garden 

Total 



SOMERVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1960 

240 
216 
64 1 



520 



216 
42 

258 



1 

1960 
1 


1 



TAUNTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 



Riverside Apartments 
Highland Heights 

Total 
Federal Program 
Fairfax Gardens 



No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1960 

102 10 
40 2 

142 12 

1960 

150 8 



State Program 



West End 
East End 



WATERTOWN HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1960 

49 
24 



Total 



73 



25 



WEYMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1960 

208 1 

WINTHROP HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1960 

78 

WOBURN HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1960 

Creston Avenue 68 

Webster Avenue 60 

Liberty Avenue 4S 



Total 176 

Federal Program I960 
Spring Court 100 1 

EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS 

Inquiries 

Exclusive of those who filed complaints 727 individuals visited the office of the 
Commission to obtain information concerning their rights and obligations under the 
provisions of the Civil Rights statutes. 

Speaking Engagements 

The Commission members and staff filled 115 speaking engagements during the past 
year. These appearances before civic, religious, fraternal and educational organiza- 
tions enable the Commission to further its public information program. 

Conferences 

The Commission members and staff conducted 119 conferences throughout the Com- 
monwealth with representatives of business, education, minority groups, labor, civic 
organizations, religious organizations and community relations councils. 

Three of the conferences were held with representatives of the governments of 
Japan, Indonesia and the Union of South Africa. The conferences were arranged by 
officials of the United States Department of Labor. The visitors were interested in 
learning of the origin and duties of the Commission in order to understand what 
Massachusetts was doing to protect the rights of its minority groups. The visiting 
officials were : 

Tatsuichi Otsuka, Central Labor Standards Inspection Supervisor, Ministry of 
Labor. Tokyo, Japan. Yoshiharu Tsujimoto, Assistant Chief, Labor Legislation 
Section, Ministry of Labor, Tokyo, Japan. Hayao Sumida, Chief of Public Relations, 
International Labor Office Section, Tokyo, Japan. Justan Tampubolon, Librarian of 
the Information Division, Ministry of Labor, Dyakarta, Indonesia. Dr. S. Biesheuval, 
Consultant, Department of Labor, Union of South Africa. 

Unit of Study: Discrimination — Danger to Democracy 

With the assistance of Dr. Thomas J". Curtin, Director of Civic Education, Depart- 
ment of Education, the unit of study entitled Discrimination — Danger to Democracy 
has been revised. 

The unit of study is distributed to high schools throughout the Commonwealth and 
has been favorably received. Instructions in its use are given upon request. 
The study unit will be ready for distribution in the near future. 



26 



Council Activities 

Chapter 151B of the General Laws, Section 3, Paragraph 8 empowers the Com- 
mission "To create such advisory agencies and conciliation councils ... as in its judg- 
ment will aid in ejffectuating the purposes of this chapter . . . Such councils shall be 
composed of representative citizens serving without pay ..." 

The Commission has been asked some rather searching questions about the Councils 
and what they are doing. In each instance the questions came from Council members 
who were measuring accomplishments. They knew they were appointed by the Com- 
mission to help in its educational work. The Councils translate the Commission to 
their communities and their help is invaluable. The Council members raising ques- 
tions were being self critical — an admirable quality and quite consistent with their 
thoughtful approach to social problems. These questions led to discussion of various 
matters, for the most part related to housing and are noted below. 

Eradicating prejudice which often leads to discrimination is not easy. Moral sua- 
sion is needed as is also the example of the leaders of the community. Our Councils 
are made up of people of importance whose example will influence others. They have 
earned a reputation for civic interest through their desire to improve group under- 
standing, respect and good will. As was said by one Council member, "You know 
that after a Council meeting many situations just straighten out." That sounds like 
magic and yet it can be recognized as the type of solution that may be brought about 
through a simple conversation. 

Most people want to do the right thing but, as a noted religious leader stated, "It 
is easier to do the right thing when you have to!" That is when an interpretation 
of the law is effective. It is also easier to comply with the law when it is evident 
that thoughtful, powerful civic leaders approve of it. So our Councils aid in the 
educational work of the Commission by their very existence and through the con- 
tinuing influence of their individual members persuade people to think more deeply 
and with greater sympathy about the senseless cleavages and injustices in our own 
American society. 

What are the important housing matters as mentioned above that the Commission 
has discussed with its Councils? The following have been considered by our State 
Advisory Council and by the Springfield, Worcester, Boston, North Shore, New Bed- 
ford, Cape Cod and Berkshire County Councils : 

1. The Conference on Housing in April, 1960 at the Boston College Law School. 
This Conference was jointly sponsored by the Massachusetts Association of 
Real Estate Boards and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimina- 
tion. 

2. The first housing case to be taken to public hearing. 

3. Highlights regarding housing cited at the Conference of Commissions Against 
Discrimination held in June at North Falmouth, This was a meeting of all 
Commissions in the United States and Canada. 

4. Notices prepared by the Commission to be placed in housing developments 
and apartment houses. 

5. Distribution of "car cards" contributed by the Anti-Defamation League of 
B'nai B'rith. (These cards call attention to the housing laws.) 

Council chairmen have arranged for joint meetings of their Council members, the 
Commission and housing re-development officials. 

While the main concern of the Commission last year and this year has been on 
housing as indicated above because of the recent enactment of the housing laws and 
their broad social impact, it must be stressed that employment, education and public 
accommodations have not been overlooked or in any way neglected. In addition, the 
Worcester and North Shore Councils have proposed for their spring meetings in 1961 
a limcheon or dinner to promote public relations and acquaint more people with the 
work of the Commission and the Councils. 

Each year, more and more progress is noted in the Cape Cod area — the increased 
integration of school teachers — the awareness of civil responsibility of teen-agers — 



27 



the meeting of interracial and interfaith teen-age groups to exchange ideas — the 
opening of doors in the field of public accommodations. 

What the Councils appointed b}^ the Commission can and are doing in their respec- 
tive sections of the Commonwealth is exemplified by the following letter which was 
published recently in the Berkshire Eagle and submitted by the chairman of the Berk- 
shire County Council Against Discrimination. Dr. James M. Burns : 

"In this season of good will toward men. I would like to mention a group of 
Berkshire County men and women who are helping to put brotherhood into prac- 
tice. This is the Berkshire County Council Against Discrimination, composed of 
leading business men, labor officials, educators, NAACP leaders, and others. A 
non-partisan group, the Council was under the chairmanship at first of Mr. Bruce 
Crane of Dalton, who was succeeded by the undersigned. 

"The local Council is mainly an educational group. We want to make clear 
to everyone in the county that he has a right to full and equal opportunity no 
matter what his race, color, religion, national origin, age or ancestry. We have 
taken up the problem of educational opportunity with school officials; of job 
opportunity with business and union leaders ; of housing with real estate offi- 
cials, ^lost important, we want the citizens of the county to know that the 
Council is most interested in exploring any problem of discrimination that may 
exist in the area. 

"The Berkshire County Council was established by the Alassachusetts Com- 
mission Against Discrimination, a state agency. The state commission has both 
educational and legal powers. When a person complains of discrimination, the 
commission may hold a hearing or it may simply try to settle the problem 'out 
of court;' the commission has power to go into the courts where anyone who dis- 
criminates can be punished under the law. 

"Here in Berkshire County we want to be sure that everyone knows his rights 
under the law. If you are refused the right to buy or rent a house or apartment 
because of color, race, national origin, religious creed or ancestry, you have the 
right to complain to the local council or to the Massachusetts Commission Against 
Discrimination, whose address is 41 Tremont Street, Boston 8, ^lass. 

"If you are refused a haircut, or a job, or educational opportunity, or any other 
such public service, you should report your complaint to the state commission or 
to the local council. If you would like to know the name of the local council 
member in your area, so you might talk the matter over before taking action, you 
can get his or her name from the commission in Boston. 

"Many people do not know of their rights under the law. Such people may 
not read this letter. Hence, it is the job of all of us to help these people know 
their rights and to advise them on what they can do. If you know of anyone 
who has been the subject of discrimination, please urge him to write the commis- 
sion or get in touch with one of the 30 local members. Insuring equal opportunity 
for all is the job for all." 



28 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 
November 10, 1946 to December 31, 1960 



Complaints : 

Initiated and received 1914 

Closed after formal hearing 4 

Closed after investigation and conference 1046 

Closed for lack of probable cause 654 

Closed for lack of jurisdiction 71 

Withdrawn 94 

Pending investigation and conference 44 

Noticed for formal hearing 1 

Investigations Without Complaint: 

Initiated b}^ the Commission 838 

Closed after investigation and conference 646 

Closed for lack of probable cause 172 

Transferred to complaint 8 

Pending investigation and conference 12 

Regulating and Supervising Age Amendment : 

Initiated by the Commission 779 

Closed after investigation and conference 735 

Closed for lack of probable cause 30 

Pending investigation and conference 14 

TOTAL 3531 

Nature of Complaints and Investigations : 

Based upon alleged color discrimination 1351 

Based upon alleged religious discrimination 354 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of race 52 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of national origin 360 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of ancestry 41 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of age 1373 

Type of Complaints and Investigations : 

Against employers 2710 

Against employment agencies 142 

Against labor unions 37 

Others 65 

Public Accommodations 272 

Newspaper Advertising 145 

Public Housing 14 

Publicly Assisted Housing 28 

Private Housing 100 

Fair Educational Practices 18 



Rules of Practice and Procedure 

The rules of practice and procedure were revised and made current to include pro- 
cedure under the fair housing practices amendments to the law. 



29 



CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES 
ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMISSION 

The FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE LAW was enacted as Chapter 151B 
of the General Laws by Chapter 368 of the Acts of 1946; amended by Chapter 424 
of the Acts of 1947 relative to inquiries into whether an applicant for employment 
or" union membership is a veteran or a citizen; further amended by Chapter 411 of 
the Acts of 1948 relative to civil service coverage of certain commission employees ; 
further amended by Chapter 479 of the Acts of 1950 changing the name of the Fair 
Employment Practice Commission to the Massachusetts Commission Against Dis- 
crimination and further defining its powers and duties ; further amended by Chapter 
697 of the Acts of 1950 relative to employment discrimination because of age ; further 
amended by Chapter 588 of the Acts of 1951 relative to compensation of members of 
the Commission; further amended by Chapter 274 of the Acts of 1955 relative to 
discrimination by bonding companies. 

The FAIR EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES LAW was enacted as Chapter 151C 
of the General Laws by Chapter 726 of the Acts of 1949; amended by Chapter 334 
of the Acts of 1956 giving jurisdiction over the law to the Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination. 

Discrimination in PUBLIC HOUSING, made illegal by Chapter 121, Section 26FF 
of the General Laws, was further defined to include segregation, and jurisdiction over 
complaints was given to the MCAD by Chapter 479 of the Acts of 1950. 

The PUBLIC ACCOMAIODATIONS LAW^ (Chapter 272, Section 92A and 
Section 98 of the General Laws) was placed under the jurisdiction of the MCAD by 
Chapter 479 of the Acts of 1950 ; amended by Chapter 437 of the Acts of 1953 further 
defining a place of public accommodation. 

The PUBLICLY ASSISTED HOUSING LAW was enacted as an amendment 
to the fair employment practice law by Chapter 426 of the Acts of 1957. 

The PRIVATE HOUSING LAW was enacted as an amendment to the fair em- 
ployment practice law by Chapter 239 of the Acts of 1959 ; further amended by Chap- 
ter 163 of the Acts of 1960 forbidding discrimination in the granting of mortgage 
loans. 

APPENDIX 

Conference of Commissions Against Discrimination 
June 12-15, 1960 

The Conference of Commissions Against Discrimination met in Massachusetts at 
the Sea Crest Hotel, North Falmouth, June 12-15, 1960. 

This was the second time Massachusetts has played host to this important group 
of officials representing organizations that have law enforcing powers in this field 
of civil rights. The attendance was unusually high. Ninety-five representatives 
came from twenty states. Some came from as far away as California, Oregon, the 
State of Washington, and five from the Canadian Provinces. 

Four federal officials appeared on the two and one-half day program : Gordon M. 
Tiffany, Director, U. S. Civil Rights Commission; Miss Alargaret Garrity, Executive 
Director, President's Committee on Government Contracts; Miss Frances Levenson, 
Director, National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing; and Hobson R. 
Reynolds, Assistant to Commissioner, Federal Housing Administration. Mr. Tiffany 
and Miss Garrity took part in the Panel Discussion of State Federal Relations in 
Civil Rights ; Miss Levenson on Campaigning tor Fair Housing Legislation and Mr. 
Reynolds on Problems in Administration of Fair Housing Practices Laws. 



30 



Governor Foster Furcolo was the guest speaker at the welcoming luncheon on June 
13th. In his address he stressed the importance of recognizing talent irrespective of 
race, religion or national origin and cited many examples of such selections during 
his administration. He referred also to the Governor's Conference on Housing held 
at Boston College in 1958 which had so much to do with promoting interest in the 
private housing legislation enacted in 1959. 

Dr. Gordon W. Allport, a member of the MCAD's State Advisory Council, was the 
guest speaker Tuesday night at the Conference Banquet. As a most renowned psy- 
chologist in the field of human relations his statement that law was perhaps even 
more essential than education in correcting inequities was of tremendous significance 
to the Conference. Quoting from the June 15, 1960 issue of the Christian Science 
Monitor, he said : 

"... The old view, explains Dr. Gordon W. Allport, professor of psychology 
in the Department of Social Relations at Harvard University, was that human 
nature must change before laws can change. 

"This viewpoint placed most of the burden on the educational efforts of clergy- 
men and educators. However, being mainly verbal, this old approach has failed. 

"The new* approach symbolized by the Supreme Court school desegregation 
decision of 1954, is that you must begin by changing the social structure in order 
to change human attitudes. 

"Researchers have found that contact based on equal status helps to reduce 
prejudice. As people are 'put next to each other' through the urging of law, they 
gradually get used to each other and lose any unreasonable ill feeling. 

"This 'real shift in priorities' from verbal education to public law enforcement 
'is a good change.' It assumes that 'if you change public morality, private moral- 
ity will change too.' 

"The heart of the educational problem (which still must accompany law). Dr. 
Allport declares, is the home. Although children can be exposed to progressive 
ideas at school, the fundamental influence on their attitudes is exerted in the home. 

"If the home attitude, however, is one of prejudice, liberal public opinion 'must 
chisel here and there,' hoping to accomplish its purpose only through the passage 
of generations ..." 

All sessions were conducted in a manner reflecting great credit on their chairmen 
and participants. It was a conference that left the host state very proud of its asso- 
ciates in the eighteen other states having similar laws to enforce and educational 
programs to conduct. 

State Advisory Council Membership 
John J. Desmond, Jr., Chairman 

Dr. Gordon W. Allport, Professor of Psychology, Harvard University 
Rt. Rev. Robert P. Barry, LL.D., St. Clement's Church, West Somerville 
Clarence Q. Berger, Dean of University Planning and Development, Brandeis 
University 

Charles C. Dasey, Retired Manager, Cunard White Star Line; Secretary, Rotary 

Club of Boston 
Roland B. Gittelsohn, Rabbi, Temple Israel of Boston 

Dr. Owen B. Kiernan, Commissioner of Education, Commonwealth of Massachu- 
setts 

Rt. Rev. Anson Phelps Stokes, Jr., Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese 

of Massachusetts 
Howard Thurman, Dean, Marsh Chapel, Boston University 

Regional Council Membership 

Berkshire County 
Dr. James M. Burns, Chairman, Williams College 
Bruno Aron, Innkeeper, Festival House, Lenox 
Samuel E. Bloomberg, Attorney at Law 

Nathaniel S. Brown, President, Advance Publishing Co., Inc., Great Barrington 

Lincoln S. Cain, Attorney at Law 

John E. Coughlin, Painters' Local Union No. 94 



31 



Bruce Crane, President, Crane & Company, Inc., Dalton 

John F. Downing, Executive Director, Association of Business and Commerce of 

Central Berkshire County, Inc. 
W. Rankin Furey, President, Berkshire Life Insurance Company 
Raymond E. Gibson, Minister, South Congregational Church, Pittsfield 
David L. Gunn, Berkshire County Branch, NAACP 
Nelson F. Hine, Pittsfield 

S. Harley Jones, President. E. D. Jones Corporation. Pittsfield 
Albert F. Litano, Local No. 255, lUE-CIO, Pittsfield 
Hans K. Maeder, Director, The Stockbridge School. Interlaken 
Emil Metropole, Realtor 

Feland A. Nevers, D.D.S., Western Mass. Dental Society, Pittsfield 
George A. Newman, Attorney at Law, Pittsfield 

William J. Nolan, Vice President & Secretary, Sprague Electric Co., North 
Adams 

Arthur Burnham Phinney. Unitarian Church, Pittsfield 

Miss L. Alberta Pierce, NAACP 

Mrs. Henry N. Rollison, Lenox 

Jay C. Rosenfeld, Rosenfeld's, Inc.. Pittsfield 

James M. Rosenthal, Member of firm. Cummings, Rosenthal & Reilly, Pittsfield 
Dr. Edward J. Russell. Superintendent of Schools. Pittsfield 
Samuel Sass, Pittsfield 

Paul A. Tamburello, Attorney at Law, United States Commissioner 

Frank T. Walker, Vice President, New England Conference, NAACP, Pittsfield 

LaFayette W. Walker, NAACP, Pittsfield 

Boston 

Carl J. Gilbert, Chairman, Chairman of the Board, The Gillette Company 
Norman H. Abbott, Boston University, Director of Placement 
Julius Bernstein, Executive Secretary. Mass. AFL-CIO, Civil Rights .Commit- 
tee ; Regional Director, Jewish Labor Committee 
Frederic C. Church, Senior Partner, Boit, Dalton & Church 
John V. Connolly, Business Manager, Boston Photo Engravers' Union No. 3 
Hubert L. Connor, Director of Apprenticeship, Division of Apprentice Training, 

Mass. Department of Labor and Industries 
Norris G. Davis, Funeral Director, Davis Funeral Home 

John E. Deady, Secretary-Treasurer, Boston Building and Construction Trades 
Council 

William H. Eastman, Second Vice President, John Hancock Mutual Life Insur- 
ance Company 

Stephen W. Fardy, Executive Secretary, Boston Allied Printing Trades Council 
Harold D. Hodgkinson, Chairman of the Board, William Filene's Sons Company 
Ernest A. Johnson, Vice President, Massachusetts Building Congress 
Kenneth J. Kelley, Secretary-Treasurer, Mass. State Labor Council, AFL-CIO 
Stephen E. McCloskey, Executive Secretarv, Greater Boston Mass. Labor Council, 
AFL-CIO 

William C. Mercer, Vice President — Personnel, New England Telephone & 
Telegraph Co. 

James H. Mumma, Director of Personnel, Raytheon Company 
Thomas A. Pappas, President, C. Pappas Company, Inc. 
Leonard T. Peters, Executive Vice President, Peters Employment Service 
Sidney R. Rabb, Chairman of the Board, Stop and Shop. Inc. 
Paul T. Rothwell, Chairman of the Board, Bay State Milling Company 
Arthur Seserman, Executive Secretary, Boston Branch, National Metal Trades 
Association 

F. Frank Vorenberg, President, Gilchrist Company 

Leslie E. Woods, Labor Relations Advisor & Consultant, Raytheon Company 

Cape Cod 

Dr. Lewis Paul Todd, Chairman, Editor, "Social Education" 



32 



Harold L. Baker, Chief of Police, Falmouth 

Harvard H. Broadbent, Superintendent of Schools, Town of Barnstable 
Moncrieff M. Cochran. Guidance Director, Nauset Regional High School, Orleans 
Norman H, Cook, Executive Secretary, Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce 
Manuel Corey, Jr., Falmouth 

Charles A. Coyle, Executive Secretary, Alassachusetts Hotel Association 

Very Rev. Leonard J. Daley, V.F., Pastor, St. Francis Xavier Church, Hyannis 

Aliss Eugenia Fortes, Hyannis 

Mrs. Roma M. Freeman, Physical Education & Science Teacher, Barnstable 

Junior High School 
Mrs. Walter H. Garrison, Hyannis 
Joseph Gomes, Osterville 
Jack Gravier, Falmouth 

Arthur G. Harvvood, Executive Director, Falmouth Housing Authority 
Malcolm R. Hobbs, Editor and Publisher, "The Cape Codder", Orleans 
George A. Hough, Jr., Editor and Publisher, "The Falmouth Enterprise" 
Joseph Indio, Editor and Publisher, "Nantucket Town Crier" 
Allen F. Jones, Contractor, Barnstable 

James H. Kennedy, Employment Office Alanager, Mass. Division of Employment 

Security, Plymouth 
John C. Linehan, Principal, Barnstable Junior High School, Hyannis 
Mrs. Benjamin T. Livingstone, Sales Representative, Cape Cod Curtis Circula- 
tion Company 

Thomas F. McKeon, Alanager, McLellan Stores Corporation, Hyannis 
Harry S. Alerson, Superintendent of Schools, Falmouth 
Mrs. Harry S. Merson, Falmouth 

Ben Morton, Secretary, Chamber of Commerce, Martha's Vineyard 

Norman Nunes, Supervisor, Hood Milk Company, Hyannis 

Mrs. Lillian Olsen, Treasurer, Hyannis Cooperative Bank 

John Pena, Contractor, Member, State Board of Agriculture, West Falmouth 

Mrs. John Pena, Special Policewoman for Falmouth Police Department 

Sydney G. Pierce, Superintendent, Public Schools, Eastham, Orleans, Wellfleet 

Thomas Roderick, Teen-Age group coordinator, Hyannis 

Rev. Carl Fearing Shultz, D.D., The Federated Church of Hyannis 

Mrs. George Schuman, Hyannis 

Miss Mary G. Shea, Correspondent, "Dennis-Yarmouth Register" 
Frank Simmons, Sr., Guest House owner, Falmouth 

Warren Sperl, Assistant Treasurer, Cape & Vineyard Electric Company 
Rabbi Harold Spivack, Cape Cod Synagogue, Hyannis 
Frederick M. Sylvia, Refrigerator Service, East Falmouth 
Richard F. Tobin, Public Relations 
Mrs. Lewis Paul Todd, Truro 

Mrs. Minna Witt, Proprietor, Admiral Hotel, Hyannis 

Neiv Bedford 

Fred W. Steele, Chairman, Legislative Agent and Counsel for Textile Mills of 
Massachusetts 

Mrs. Valentina N. Almeida, Principal Clerk, City Auditor's Office 
Samuel Barnet, Special Justice, Third District Court of Bristol County 
Henry A. Bartkiewicz, Attorney at Law 
Walter W. Bonner, New Bedford High School 

James M. Buckley, Director of Adult Education, New Bedford School Depart- 
ment 

George E. Carignan, International Representative, Textile Workers' Union of 

America, AFL-CIO 
Joaquim A. Custodio, Lancashire Corporation, New Bedford 
Duncan A. Dottin, Social Worker, Division of Child Guardianship, New Bedford 
Joseph P. Duchaine, My-Bread Baking Company, New Bedford 
Rev. Edmund G. Francis, SS.CC, Pastor, St. Mary's Church, Fairhaven 
Rev. Edward A. Hailes, Union Baptist Church, New Bedford 



33 



Miss Doris E. Hopkins, Executive Director, YWCA, New Bedford 
Harold Hurwitz, Attorney at Law 

Hyman Krivoff, President & Treasurer, Dartmouth Finishing Corporation 

Miss Ruth B. McFadden, Superintendent of Schools, New Bedford 

George F. McGovern, Works Manager, Revere Copper and Brass, Inc. 

Miss Helen M. Mclntyre, Veterans' Employment Representative, Massachusetts 

Division of Employment Security 
Joao R. Rocha, Publisher & Editor, "Portuguese Daily News", New Bedford 
Fermino J. Spencer, New Bedford School Department 

Mrs. Dorothy B. Stahre, Principal, Charles S. Ashley School, New Bedford 
Joseph A. Sylvia, Jr., Register of Deeds, New Bedford 
The Hon. August C. Taveira 
Dr. Xenophon Thomas, NAACP 

Philip F. Tripp, Executive Director, New Bedford Housing Authority 
John Alarcus Williams, Proprietor, Isabella's Beauty Salon 
Donald Zeman, Attorney at Law, Bronspiegel and Zeman 

Mrs. Anthony S. Zielinski, Women's Republican Club of New Bedford Execu- 
tive Board 

North Shore 

Henry Kozlowski, Chairman, Treasurer, Jackson & Phillips, Inc. 

Anthony Athanas, President, Hawthorne Restaurants, Lynn-Swampscott 

Samuel P. Backman, Realtor, Chairman, Industrial Commission of Lynn 

Mrs. Mary Finn Berlyn, Supervisor, Adult Civic Education, Lynn Public Schools 

S. Matthew Carrington, Sr., Vice President, Lynn Council of Churches 

Abraham E. Caswell, Caswell Shoes, Inc., Lynn 

Thomas D. Chatfield, President, Essex Trust Company 

Thomas J. Curtin, Director of Civic Education, Massachusetts Department of 
Education 

Mrs. Solomon M. Feldman, Jewish Federation of Greater Lynn 
Peter Gamage, Publisher, "Lynn Item" 
Abraham Glovsk>% Senior Partner. Glovsky & Glovsky 
Mrs. Charles F. Haywood, Chief Librarian, Lynn Public Library 
Dr. Francis L. Keane, School Adjustment Counselor, Lynn Public Schools 
John M. Lilly, General Secretary, Lynn YMCA 
Herbert D. Marsh, President, Security Trust Company, Lynn 
Lawrence G. McGinn, Superintendent of Schools, Lynn School Department 
Mrs. Marcia L. Memmott, Director, Women's Division, Mass. Department of 
Commerce 

Chester C. Nemphos, Legislative Agent & Member Civil Rights Committee, 

Local 201, lUE-CIO 
Mrs. William H. Nesbit, Newspaper Reference Librarian, "Lynn Daily Evening 

Item" 

Norman J. Randell, Manager, Public Affairs, General Electric Company, Lynn 

Theodore Regnante, Chairman, Board of Trustees of Lynn Public Library 

Rev. Edgar D. Romig, Rector, St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, Lynn; President, 

Greater Lynn Council of Churches 
Arm.and J. St. Laurent, Funeral Director 
Dr. Steven S. Schwarzchild, Rabbi, Temple Beth El, Lynn 
Rt. Rev. Cornelius T. H. Sherlock, Pastor, St. Mary's Parish, Lynn 
Dr. William D. Washington, Lynn 

William A. Welch, Superintendent of Schools, Peabody 

Springfield 

Charles V. Ryan, Chairman, Attorney at Law 

Mrs. Richard B. Anderson, Public Aft'airs Committee, Springfield Community 
Council 

Archie Burack, Treasurer, Industrial Buildings Corporation 
Miss Clarace E. Gait, Head Psychiatric Social Worker, Child Guidance Clinic 
of Springfield 



34 



George C. Gordon, Gordon and Gibbs Real Estate, Springfield 
Mrs, Richard J. Griffin, Jr.. President, Springfield Council of Civic Organizations 
Miss Alice L. Halligan, Executive Secretary, Springfield Adult Education Council 
Miss Olive K. Horrigan, Director of Adult Education, Springfield School Depart- 
ment 

Robert W. Hutton, Executive Secretary, Employers' Association of Western 

Massachusetts 
Raymond T. King, Attorney at Law 

A. Benjamin Mapp, Executive Director, Urban League of Springfield 
Bernard H. McMahon. President, Springfield Five Cents Savings Bank 
Roger L. Putnam, Chairman, Package ^Machinery Company, East Longmeadow 
Mrs. Roger L. Putnam, President, Catholic Scholarships for Negroes Inc., 
Springfield 

Frederick B. Robinson, Director, Museum of Fine Arts, Springfield 
James J. Shea, President, Milton-Bradley Company, Springfield 
Dr. Hans B. C. Spiegel, Director, Community Tensions Center, Springfield 
College 

Charles ViVenzio, Local 202, AFL-CIO 
Mrs. Malcolm C. Webber 

Rev. D. Edward Wells, Mt. Calvary Baptist Church, Springfield 

Worcester 

Andrew B. Holmstrom, Chairman, Vice President, Norton Company 
Rev. Michael P. Bafaro, Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester 
Mrs. Lawrence J'. Bouchard, Massachusetts Parent-Teacher Association 
Mrs. Mary L. Boyd, Executive Board, NxA.ACP 
Dr. Arthur B. Bronwell, President, Worcester Polytechnic Institute 
Lyscom A. Bruce, Executive Secretary, Community Chest and Council of Greater 
Worcester 

Rev. Hubert C. Callaghan, S.J., Director, Institute of Industrial Relations, Col- 
lege of Holy Cross 
Miss S. Virginia Carrier, Executive Director, Worcester YWCA 
Daniel J. Casale, Supervising Manager, Division of Employment Security 
Frederic H. Case, Jr., Assistant District Director Public Relations, United Steel 
Corporation 

Thomas E. Christensen, Director of Guidance, Worcester Public Schools 
Dr. Leo T. Doherty, Superintendent of Schools, Worcester 

Donald S. Donnelly, Chief Employment Service Supervisor, Division of Employ- 
ment Security 
Samuel J. Donnelly, A. F. of L., Worcester 
Mrs. Linwood M. Erskine, President, YWCA 

Mrs. Daniel Farber, Member, Advisory Committee, Interracial Council of Wor- 
cester 

The Honorable Joseph Goldberg, Chairman, Worcester Area Committee, Anti- 
Defamation League of B'nai B'rith 

Rev. Ralph L. Holland. Th.D., Executive Secretary, Greater Worcester Area 
Council of Churches 

Dr. Howard B. Jefferson, President, Clark University, Worcester 

Mrs. Aura M. Kelliher, Principal Social Work Supervisor, Aid to Dependent 
Children Division, Board of Public Welfare 

Rabbi Joseph Klein, Temple Emanuel, W^orcester 

John S. Laws, Principal, Dix Street School, Worcester 

Kenneth 1. E. Macleod, M.D., M.P.H. 

Miss Anna M. Mays, Life member, New England Regional Conference, NAACP 
Philip M. Morgan, President, Morgan Construction Company 
Mrs. Stanley W. Norwood, Bancroft School, Worcester 

Walter A. Olson, Executive Director, Family Service Organization of Worcester 
Harry W. Oswell, Honorary Vice President, New England Regional NAACP 
Mrs. Arthur G. Perry 

Edson D. Phelps, Second Vice President, State Mutual of America 



35 



Mrs. Thomas L, Porter, First Vice President, Massachusetts State Federation 

of Women's Qubs 
Mrs. Dorothy L. Salter, President, Salter Secretarial School, Worcester 
Luther C. Small, Executive Director, Worcester Housing Authority 
Mrs. George E. Spence, Scholarship Chairman, Women's Service Club of the 

YWCA 

Roy H. Stevens, Sub-District Director, United Steelworkers of America 
Joseph Weinreb, M.D., Director, Worcester Youth Guidance Center 



Public Document 



No. 163 M^/' 



lit 

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 

ANNUAL REPORT 

of the 

Massachusetts, Commission 
Against Discrimination 

January 1, 1961 to December 31, 1961 



1 



Mildred H. Mahoney, Chairman 
Chester N. Gibbs, Commissioner 
Ben G. Shapiro, Commissioner 
Walter H. Nolan, Executive Secretary 

41 Tremont Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Publication of this Document Approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent 
4m-6-62-933260 Estimated Cost Per Copy: $.106 



...4Li!8aIlS Page 

INTRODUCTION 3 

SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTIVITiS?*' ..... 3 

SCOPE OF LAW . . Holjsg. ggg^^ . I . . . 4 

OPERATION OF THE LAW o'm^. . . 10 

COMPLAINT HISTORIES 10 

NEW LEGISLATION 14 

HOUSING 15 

Public Hearing 20 

FAIR EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES 23 

EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS .... 25 

Council Activities 27 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 35 

A LIST OF CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES 36 



Sixteenth Annual Report 
of the Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination 

INTRODUCTION 

The Commission has never completed an annual report without acknowledge- 
ment of its debt to other groups that are working toward the same goal — the elimina- 
tion of prejudice which often results in discrimination. This year the Commission 
believes it should thank a larger number of interested people than ever before and 
it rejoices in this belief. 

The most outstanding example is probably the growth of the fair housing practices 
committees, now numbering thirty-three. Their most general project is getting 
signatures to a housing pledge that declares, "I will accept families and individuals 
into my neighborhood without discrimination because of religion, color or national 
origin." If this desire to evaluate a neighbor without regard to race, color, religious 
creed or ancestry can become "the thing to do" a tremendous social victory will have 
been won through the application of good will and common sense. 

The Commission knows how effective individuals can be. Its own Council members 
have been invaluable to the Commission in the assistance they have given in its 
educational work. The Commission acknowledges this debt with deep gratitude. It 
feels very grateful as well to many prominent Jewish and Negro groups, the Attorney 
General's Office, the Department of Education, the Division of Apprentice Training 
and many, many others. It also wishes to express its deep appreciation for the help 
given to it by various newspapers, radio and television stations. 

To all of these people we say again that our experience convinces us that at any 
age discrimination can be discarded. The mature person doesn't like to dislike. He 
may fear economic loss or loss of social status but if he can be reassured on these 
scores or decide to ignore them he will join in a fairer and happier evaluation of 
his fellow man. And so the Commission greatly welcomes all the groups whose interest 
and efforts are bringing about a general acceptance of people as individuals and in 
this manner greatly assisting it in its work. 



SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTIVITIES 

The sixteenth annual report includes the period from January 1, 1961 to December 
31, 1961. 

The Commission received and processed 376 matters involving discrimination based 
on race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry. 

The Commission staff interviewed officials of 671 business concerns throughout the 
Commonwealth. The purpose of these interviews was to acquaint the employers 
with the provisions of the civil rights statutes and the interpretations and rulings 
of the Commission; to review employment application forms and hiring pK)licies and 
to gain compliance with that section of the statute which requires the display of 
the official notice in a conspicuous place on the premises. 

Of the 671 employers interviewed, 166 were found to be using employment applica- 
tion forms which were in violation of the fair employment practice provision of the 
statute. Forty-five employers were inquiring into the place of birth of the applicant's 
parents and four recorded the color of applicants. The remaining violations involved 
pre-employment inquiries into age. All violations were corrected. 

The advertising material used by hotels, motels and guest houses are screened each 
year for possible violations of the Public Accommodations law. This year the ad- 



4 



vertising material from 1103 places of public accommodations was reviewed. . 
violations of ithe law were found. 

A spot check was made of forty-four motels in the Cape Cod area to determine 
the degree of compliance with the regulation concerning display of the Public 
Accommodation Poster. All but five had complied with the regulation. The five 
motels not displaying the notice were newly opened or under new management. All 
complied immediately. 

A study was made of the tenant selection policy of twenty-seven Public Housing 
Authorities to evaluate compliance with the public housing amendment to the fair 
practices statute. The number of non-white tenants of each housing development 
is shown in the Public Housing section of this report. 

A survey of forty-seven private housing developments, under construction or ready 
for sale, was made in seventeen communities in Worcester County. The builders and 
brokers were apprised of the provisions of the fair housing practices statutes. Fair 
Housing Practices posters were distributed for display in the model homes or the 
real estaite broker's office involved. 

Another survey conducted by the Commission dealt with the policy of the employ- 
ment of older workers, forty-five to sixty-five years of age, in department or retail 
stores. Twenty companies operaiting 190 facilities were studied. There were 17,644 
employees covered by the survey. Approximately 40% were over forty-five years of age. 

In eight cities, a study was made of the distribution of Negro pupils in public 
schools to obtain factual knowledge of the existence of system-wide integration. The 
results will be found in that section of the Annual Report entitled "Fair Educa- 
tional Practices." 

A revision of the unit of study for secondary schools, "Discrimination-Danger to 
Democracy," was made available for distribution. To date, 2,735 copies have been 
delivered, upon request, to secondary schools in various sections of the Commonwealth. 

In answer to individual requests and through the cooperation of the Home Builders 
Association of Massachusetts, Rental Housing Association and the Massachusetts 
Association of Real Estate Boards, 1,500 Fair Housing Practices Posters have been 
distributed for display in rental offices, apartment buildings and in model homes. 
Public Accommodation posters have been distributed by the Board of Registration 
of Barbers. Some Fair Housing Committees have sent names and addresses of realtors 
in their neighborhoods to the Commission which has then sent out posters. 

The Commission conducted a public hearing on the adoption of its Rulings In* 
terpretive of the Fair Employment Practice Law. The public hearing was held, as 
provided by law, on March 24, 1961, and the Rulings were adopted on April 7, 1961. 
Copies are available upon request. 

In addition to those who filed complaints 738 persons visited the Commission office 
to make inquiries concerning their rights and obligations under the provisions of the 
civil rights statutes. 

The Commission members and staff filled 144 speaking engagements and conducted 
fifty-nine conferences. 

A formal hearing was held on an unfair housing practice charge. The matter is 
pending before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on the question of the 
constitutionality of the private housing not publicly assisted provision of the law. 

SCOPE OF THE LAW 

The following is a list of the questions the Commission is most frequently asked 
concerning the scope of the law. It hopes the answers will serve to inform the inhabit- 
ants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of their rights, privileges and duties 
under the various sections of the law: 

What is the Purpose of the Fair Employment Practice Law? 

Its purpose is to prevent and eliminate practices of discrimination in employment 
because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry. 

When Did the Law Go Into Effect? 
August 21, 1946. 

i 



5 



Who Administers the Law? 
Three Commissioners, appointed by the Governor. 

\Vhat Is the Commission Empowered to Do? 
It is empowered to receive, investigate and pass upon complaints alleging discrimina- 
tion in employment because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or 
ancestry; to hold hearings and subpoena witnesses. 

Does the Fair Employment Practice Law Apply Only to Hiring? 
No, it applies also to discharge, transfer, promotion, terms and privileges of 
employment, including unfair working conditions such as separation of facilities 
and segregation in employment. 

Are All Employers Subject to the Law? 

All employers with six or more employees, including the state and local govern- 
ments, are subject to the law except that the state and its subdivisions are ex- 
empted from the age provisions. The law does not apply to clubs which are 
exclusively social or to fraternal, charitable, educational or religious associations 
which are not organized for private profit; nor does the law apply to any individual 
employed by his parents, spouse or children or engaged in domestic service. 

How Does the Law Affect Employment Agencies? 
It is unlawful for an employment agency: 

1. To ask questions BEFORE employment or to make any statement to a 
prospective employer concerning the race, color, religious creed, national origin, 
age or ancestry of an applicant. 

2. To place advertisements for help or use application blanks which directly or 
indirectly express any limitation upon employment because of race, color, 
religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry of an applicant. 

3. To accept or process job orders from employers which limit or specify the 
race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry of an applicant. 

What Questions May Not Be Asked of an Applicant for Employment? 
Questions may not be asked concerning: 
Birthplace or that of relatives. 
Religious creed. 
Color or complexion. 
Lineage or national origin. 

Places of residence of relatives of the applicant or their places of business outside 

of the United States. 
Military experience in the service of a foreign country. 

Organizations of which the applicant is a member if their names indicate religion 

race, national origin or ancestry. 
Age. 

Citizenship, which would indicate whether the applicant is naturalized or native- 
born; but the applicant may be asked if he is a citizen. 

May an Applicant Be Asked to Produce Military Discharge Papers, Naturalization 
Papers or a Birth Certificate Prior to Employment? 
Xo. 

May a Photograph Be Required Prior to Employment? 
Xo. 

Does the Law Tell an Employer Whom to Hire? 

Xo, but it does declare it to be unlawful for an employer to refuse to employ, or 
to discharge from employment any individual because of race, color, religious creed, 
national origin, age or ancestry. It does not restrict an employer from establishing 
occupational qualifications provided that they are applied equally to all persons. 

May Job Qualifications Include Personality and Appearance? 
Yes, depending on the job. But appearance cannot include color or racial character- 
istics. 



6 



Suppose an Employer Is Willing to Hire Qualified Minority Group Workers But 
Cannot Because of Discriminatory Labor Union Practice? 

Complaints may be filed against labor organizations, since these organizations are 
subject to the Fair Employment Practice Law, when persons are denied full mem- 
bership rights because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry. 

Suppose an Employer Desires to Hire Qualified Minority Group Members But Fears an 
Unfavorable Reaction From His Other Employees? 

A clear stand by the employer indicating that he intends to comply with the law 
and hire the most quaUfied workers regardless of their race, color, religious creed, 
national origin, age or ancestry will usually suffice. However, the provisions of the 
Fair Employment Practice Law can also be invoked against employees attempting 
to obstruct the purposes of the law. 

Does the Fair Employment Practice Law Give Minority Group Members Any Special 
Privileges in Obtaining Employment? 

No, the purpose of the law is to afford all persons equal opportunities in employ- 
ment regardless of race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry, with 
the qualifications of the applicants being the sole test in selecting employees. 

If I File a Complaint Against My Employer, Might This Action Cause Me to Lose 
My Job Or to Be Otherwise Discriminated Against By Him? 

No, the law makes it a violation to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against 
any person because he has filed a complaint. 

How Does the Law Affect Employees On ithe Job? 

It requires that wages, hours, use of rest room and restaurant facilities, etc., be 
afforded equally to all employees regardless of race, color, religious creed, national 
origin, age or ancestry. 

Who May File a Complaint With the Commission? 

Any person claiming to be aggrieved because of an alleged unlawful practice; the 
Attorney General of the Commonwealth; an employer when his employees, or some 
of them, refuse or threaten to refuse to comply with the provisions of the law. The 
Commission itself may file a complaint whenever it has reason to believe any person 
has been or is engaging in an unlawful practice. 

What Is Meant By "An Aggrieved Person"? 

An aggrieved person is one who believes that his legal rights have been invaded 
because of discrimination in employment, education, public accommodations or 
housing. 

How May a Complaint Be Filed? 

Anyone wishing to file a complaint on charges of discrimination because of race, 
color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry must make a complaint in 
person or in writing which must be noitarized. Upon request the staff of the Com- 
mission will assist a person in recording a complaint. 

Where Should a Complaint Be Filed? 

At the offices of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 41 Tremont 
Street, Boston, Massachusetts. 

Is There Any Time Limit For the Filing Of a Complaint? 

Yes, a complaint must be filed within six months after alleged act of discrimination. 

What Happens To a Complaint After It Is Filed? 

It is assigned to a commissioner who, with the assistance of the staff, conducts an 
investigation to determine whether probable cause exists for crediting the statements 
appearing in the complaint. 

What Does "Probable Cause" Mean? 

That there is credible evidence warranting a belief that discrimination may have 
been practiced. 



7 



If Probable Cause Is Found To Exist, What Then? 

The Investigating Commissioner endeavors to eliminate the unlawful practice com- 
plained of by conference, conciliation and persuasion, that is, through frank dis- 
cussion with the parties concerned. 

If Conference, Conciliation and Persuasion Prove Unsuccessful, What Further Steps 
May Be Taken? 

A formal hearing may then be ordered before the other two commissioners. The 
Investigating Commissioner can now appear only as a witness, and the testimony 
taken at this hearing shall be under oath. 

How Is a Final Order of the Commission Enforced? 

The Commission may obtain in the Superior Court an order for the enforcement 
of its decision. 

Was the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination Always Known By This 
Name? 

No. From 1946 to 1950 the Commission was known as the Fair Employment 
Practice Commission. 

Why Was the Name of the Commission Changed in 1950? 

The name of the Commission w^as changed because of certain amendments which 
increased the duties of the Commission and broadened the scope of the original law. 

What Were These Amendments to the Original Fair Employment Practice Law? 
The amendments were three in number: 

1) The age amendment; 

2) The public accommodations amendment; 

3) The public housing amendment. 

What Is the Age Amendment? 

The age amendment prohibits discrimination in employment solely because of age. 
Age is defined in the law as being between the 45Lh and 65th birthday. 

What Is the Public Accommodations Amendment? 

This amendment proliibits the making of any distinction, discrimination or re- 
striction on account of religion, color or race, relative to the admission of any person 
to, or his treatment in, any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement. 

What Is the Public Housing Amendment? 

This amendment provides that there shall be no discrimination nor segregation in 
public housing because of race, color, creed or religion. 

Must There Be an Official Notice of the Commission Posted On the Premises? 
Yes. Every employer, employment agency and labor union subject to this law shall 
post in a conspicuous place or places on his premises a notice prepared by the 
Commission and called the Summary of the Law% which sets forth excerpts of the 
law and such other relevant information which the Commission deems necessary to 
explain the law. 

Any employer, employment agency or labor union refusing to comply with the 
provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than SI 0.00 nor 
more than SIOO.OO. 

Is There a Regulation Concerning the Display of an Official Poster In a Place of 
Public Accommodation? 

At a public hearing held on May 21, 1959 the Commission adopted a regulation 
ordering all places of public accommodations to display conspicuously a Public 
Accommodations poster. 

Has There Been Any Added Jurisdiction Given the MCAD Since the Amendments 
of 1950? 

Yes. In 1955 the Fair Employment Practice Act w^as amended. In 1956 the adminis- 
tration of the Fair Educational Practices Law w^as transferred from the Department 
of Education to the MCAD. In 1957 the Publicly Assisted Housing Law was enacted. 
In 1959 the Private Housing Law was passed. 



8 



What Does the 1955 Amendment Provide? 

No person engaged in insurance or the bonding business may make inquiry or 
record of any information relating to the race, color, religious creed, national origin 
or ancestry of a person to be bonded. 

What Does the Fair Educational Practices Law Cover? 

It covers all educational institutions in the state with the possible exception of 
religious institutions, and then only in regard to religion. 

What Does It Declare? 

It declares the policy of the Commonwealth to be the American ideal of equality 
of opportunity requiring that students, otherwise qualified, be admitted to educa- 
tional institutions without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. 

What Is The Purpose of the Publicly Assisted Housing Law? 

The prevention and elimination of discrimination because of race, creed, color or 
national origin in the sale, rental or lease of private housing accommodations which 
are publicly assisted. 

What Are Some Examples of Housing Which is Publicly Assisted? 

1. Housing which is itax exempt in whole or in part. 

2. Housing constructed under urban renewal programs. 

3. Housing accommodations located in a multiple dwelling insured by the Federal 
Housing Administration or some other agency of the Federal or State Government. 

4. Housing accommodations located in a development of ten or more contiguous 
units, the construction of which has been insured by a governmental agency 
or which are offered for sale under the FHA or VA mortgage insurance programs. 

What Is A Multiple Dwelling? 
A dwelling which is occupied as the residence or home of three or more families 
living independently of each other. 

Is There a Later Amendmemt Concerning Housing? 
Yes. Chapter 239 of the Legislative Acts of 1959 broadened the scope of existing 
legislation in that the law now covers private housing consisting of multiple 
dwellings of three or more or ten or more houses contiguously located. 

What Types of Housing Are Covered By the New Law? 

The following types of private housing are covered: apartment houses, housing 
developments consisting of ten or more houses and single houses if the house 
has been built on "one of ten or more lots of a 'tract whose plan has been submitted 
to a planning board as required by THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW." 

What Is An Unfair Practice Under the Law? 
An unfair practice is: 

a. to refuse to rent, lease, or sell to any person or group of persons because of 
race, creed, color or national origin housing covered by the law; 

b. to discriminate against any person because of his race, creed, color or national 
origin in the terms, conditions or privileges of such housing or in the furnish- 
ing of facilities or services in connection therewith; or 

c. to cause to be made any written or oral inquiry or record concerning the race, 
creed, color or national origin of a person seeking to buy, rent or lease any 
such housing. 

What Is the Attorney General's Ruling Concerning Real Estate Agencies? 

On November 24, 1959 Attorney General Edward J. McCormack, Jr. ruled that real 
estate agencies are places of public accommodation and are subject to the pro- 
visions of Chapter 272, Section 98 of the General Laws. 



9 



What Ck)nstitutes a Violation By a Real Estate Agency? 

The ruling declared that it is a violaition for a real estate agency to refuse to offer 
its services to any person or to refuse to accommodate any person as a client because 
of race, creed or color. 

What Is the Amendment Concerning Mortgage Loans? 
Chapter 15 IB, section 4, subsection 3B of the General Laws, as amended by Chapter 
163 of the Legislative Acts of 1960, prohibits any person engaged in the business of 
granting mortgage loans to discriminate against any person in the granting of any 
mortgage loan, including but not limited to the interest rate, terms or duration of 
such mortgage loan, because of his race, color, religious creed, national origin, or 
ancestry. 

Are Licensed Real Estate Brokers Subject to the Provisions of the Fair Housing Law? 
Yes. Chapter 128 of the Legislative Acts of 1961 amended General Laws Chapter 
15 IB, section 4, subsection 6 to include licensed real estate brokers. 

Who Are Prohibited From Employing Unfair Practices Under the Law? 

Owners, lessees, sublessees, licensed real estate brokers, assignees or managing agents 
or other persons having the right of ownership or possession or right to rent or 
lease, or sell, or negotiate for the sale of the housing accommodations or any agent 
or employee of such persons. 

Can the Commission Obtain Injunctive Relief Restraining the Sale, Rental or Lease 

of the Housing Accommodation Involved in a Complaint Before It? 
Yes. Chapter 570 of the Legislative Acts of 1961 amended Chapter 15 IB, section 5 
of the General Laws to outline the procedure to be taken by an individual com- 
missioner to petition the Courts for a restraining order which will provide in- 
junctive relief. Such an injunction can only be issued by the Court. 

When May the Court Be Petitioned to Grant Such a Restraining Order? 

As soon as a determination of probable cause has been made that the allegations of 
the complaint have been substantiated. 

Provided Injunctive Relief Is Granted How Does This Help the Complainant? 
The owner of the housing accommodations is restrained from renting, leasing or 
selling the housing accommodations to any other than the complainant pending 
the final determination of the Commission in the matter. 

Has the Commission a Regulation Implementing the Fair Housing Practices Law? 

Yes. On November 9, 1960 the Commission adopted a regulation which requires 
a Fair Housing Poster be displayed conspicuously in the model home of each hous- 
ing development or the model apartment in each apartment building. If neither 
are used the poster must be displayed in that place where negotiations or agree- 
ments are customarily made for the renting, leasing or purchase of housing ac- 
commodations. 

What Additional Duty Is Given the Commission? 

It is given the power to create advisory agencies and conciliation councils, and as is 
stated in the Law: 

"The Commission may empower them to study the problems of discrimination in 
order to foster through community efEort . . . good will, cooperation and con- 
ciliation among the groups and elements of the population of the Commonwealth 
. . . and make recommendations to the Commission for the development of policies 
. . . and for programs of formal and informal education which the Commission may 
recommend to the appropriate state agency." 



10 



OPERATION OF THE LAW 

1. Eti forcing the Law 

When a complaint is brought by an individual or his attorney, it is assigned to a 
commissioner who, with the assistance of the staff, conducts an investigation to deter- 
mine whether probable cause exists for crediting the statements appearing in the 
complaint. If probable cause is found to exist, the investigating commissioner en- 
deavors to eliminate the unlawful practice complained of by conference, conciliation 
and persuasion, that is, through frank discussion with the parties concerned. If 
necessary, the Commission has the power to subpoena. If the matter cannot be 
settled in the conference period it is referred to the other two commissioners for a 
hearing which is public. After such a hearing the Commission may issue orders which 
may be carried out by the Superior Court. 

2. Investigations 

An investigation deals with a situation which does not begin with a formal com- 
plaint from an individual, but it must relate to instances where trouble is manifest 
and can be traced to the factors of race, religious creed, national origin, age or 
ancestry and so is of concern to the Commission and community. The Commission 
recognizes what it considers to be a danger signal and tries to straighten out the 
matter in a cooperative manner. The information which triggers the investigation 
may come from a reputable source or agency or may be an incident involving an 
organization exempted from the provisions of the statutes. Under such circumstances 
the Commission invites people to a conference in an attempt to resolve the situation. 

3. Education 

The educational program attempts through Council activities, distribution of the 
Unit of Study, "Discrimination — Danger to Democracy," conferences, speeches, surveys 
and the distribution of printed material to acquaint the general community with 
the work of the Commission ito the end that public understanding, sympathy and 
support may be stimulated and the services given by the Commission may be made 
clear. 

COMPLAINT HISTORIES 

Public Housing 

In March of 1961 a complaint was filed alleging that a Public Housing Authority 
had denied housing accommodations because of color. 

Investigation revealed that in August of the preceding year complainant first 
applied for housing. The official application form of ithe Public Housing Authority 
was completed by complainant who was told that she would hear from them some 
time in October. 

From October 1960 to January 1961 complainant when interviewed by a field 
representative contended that she could not obtain any information as to the status 
of her application. In January 1961 complainant was told by the Secretary to the 
Authority that her applications had been turned down. 

An Authority member was approached and it was learned that there was a ques- 
tion pertaining ito complainant's family income. 

In February 1961 the Secretary of the Authority stated that there had been in- 
sufficient information received from the original application. It was alleged that the 
Authority had revised its application forms to include additional inquiries pertaining 
to the reason for desiring housing as well as the employment history and income 
of the family. 

Complainant had filled out the new revised application form. 

Three weeks elapsed. Complainant claimed that when the Authority was contacted 
its response was that no decision had been reached on the application. 

Investigation revealed that the Authority had not retained complainant's original 
application. 



11 



It was claimed by the Authority that complainant's income was above the maximum 
allowed. Investigation revealed this claim was not accurate. 

Complainant and family were accepted by the Authority as tenants in June 1961. 
(PH-IX-l-C) 

Private Housing 

1. On September 11, 1961, a complaint was filed by the wife of a Negro physician 
charging the owner and his agent of refusing to rent her an apartment because of her 
color. 

In her allegations, complainant claimed that a friend of hers notified her of an 
apartment which was to become vacant in the immediate future. 

On September 1, 1961, complainant contacted the rental agent and obtained veri- 
fication that the apartment would be available for occupancy the first of the following 
month. The rental agent was asked the rent to be charged and would there be 
objections because of the fact she had three children. 

Concerning what rent would be charged, the rental agent stated that he would 
take the matter up with the owners and would know on September 5, 1961. With 
regard to children, the agent said that he was sure that this would not pose a problem. 
He recommended that the complainant go through the apartment upon the return 
from vacation of the present tenants whose telephone number he gave. 

On September 5, 1961, complainant was shown through the apartment by the 
tenants. Immediately, upon leaving, complainant called the rental agent and told him 
she would like to have the apartment. She was told the rent would be 115 dollars per 
month. The fact that there were three children posed no problem. The agent said 
that he would come to complainant's home at about noon the follo^^dng day to pick 
up the check for the first month's rent. This conversation with the rental agent took 
place about 2:00 P.M. 

After her conversation with the rental agent, complainant alleged that she returned 
to the apartment to discuss purchasing some furniture which the tenant wished to sell. 

At approximately 4:30 P.M. a message was delivered to the complainant asking her 
to telephone the rental agent. According to the complaint, the rental agent upon oeing 
contacted declared that the owner of the apartment building had decided not to have 
any more children in the building. Complainant was told that if the owner should 
change his mind she would be considered. 

The investigation of the complaint ensued. The rental agent declared that he did 
not have knowledge that complainant was colored. All conversations with complainant 
had been held on the telephone. 

The tenant, who was to vacate the apartment, denied that she had informed the 
rental agent that the complainant was colored. 

The investigation developed that neighbors, seeing a colored person viewing the 
apartment twice in one day, called the agent and apprised him of complainant's color. 

An affidavit was obtained from a person who, under oath, stated to the Com- 
mission that on three occasions, between September 5, 1961 and September 8, 1961, the 
rental agent had informed him during the course of his applying for the apartment 
that children in the family was not a problem. 

A survey of the apartments revealed that of the eight tenants, five families had 
children. Four of the families had two children each and one family, one child. 

At least three tenants in the building contacted the rental agent to inform him 
that they had no objection to a Negro family moving into the building. 

An informal conference of all of the parties at interest was called. During the con- 
ference, the owner of the apartment building informed the Investigating Commissioner 
that he was greatly impressed with complainant. In addition having learned that 
complainant's husband is a physician attached to one of the leading hospitals in the 
area, the o^vner interrupted the proceedings and asked complainant to make out a 
check and she would be given the apartment. Complainant wrote the check and 
subsequently moved into the apartment. (PrH-III-52-C) 

2. The first week in February 1961, a complainant, a Negro, applied for an apart- 
ment having heard of a vacancy from the tenant who was creating the vacancy. 

Every two weeks, complainant alleged, he called respondent only to be put off 
with various excuses. 



12 



From his first call to respondent up to and including May 24, 1961, the dajte on 
which his complaint was filed, complainant knew of four vacancies having occurred 
at respondent's apartment building. He had knowledge also of respondent making 
inquiries of his landlord with reference to his present rent of two hundred and twenty 
dollars per month, whether he was noisy, prompt in his rental payments and whether 
he was rated a good tenant or not. The landlord gave the complainant an excellent 
rating. 

Investigation revealed that respondent was negotiating to sell the apartment 
building and was fearful that the tenancy of a Negro would present an added obstacle 
to the negotiations. 

Informal conferences were conducted with respondent and his attorney. It was 
agreed to bring the matter to the attention of ithe j>eople who were negotiating to 
purchase the property. The negotiations went forward, final papers were passed and 
the new owners offered complainant an apartment and complainant took occupancy. 
(PrH-III-28-C) 

3. During the past year and a half there have been formed in Boston and its suburbs 
thirty-three fair housing practices committees. These committees are composed of 
civic-minded individuals banded together for the purpose of overcoming resistance 
to the residence of minority groups in their resj>ective communities. The members, 
in addition, assist in locating housing accommodations for minority group individuals. 
These committees are completely independent of the Commission. 

During the adjudication of this complaint the Commission, for the first time, 
applied for and received a temporar}' restraining order which, in effect, retained the 
vacancy until the matter was resolved. 

The day before he filed his charges, complainant, a Negro, alleged that he had 
been notified by a fair housing practices committee member that she had answered 
an advertisement of a seven-room apartment, informing the owner ithat she was seek- 
ing an apartment for a friend and had obtained a statement ithat the apartment was 
available to a family with three children. 

Accompanied by the committee member, complainant applied to the wife of the 
owner within a half hour of his being apprised of ithe vacancy. The apartment and the 
rental price of one hundred and fifty dollars per month being satisfactory, com- 
plainant offered a deposit. The wife of the owner would not accept the deposit 
claiming that she would have to discuss the matter with her husband who would 
not return until 11 p.m. that night. It was agreed that complainant should telephone 
and speak to the husband that evening. 

About 11:15 p.m. complainant alleged he called respondent and asked the wife 
if she had discussed the rental with her husband. According to the complaint the 
wife answered in the affirmative and declared that since they had paid for a three-day 
advertisement they were not going to make a decision until the advertisement expired. 
In answer to another inquiry complainant was informed that there were no vacancies 
in other properties owned by respondent. 

The following day another member of the fair housing practices committee applied 
for the apartment and using the identical family situation, a wife and three children, 
was asked to place a deposit of one month's rent. A sworn statement to this effect 
was filed with this complaint. 

Contact was made with respondent immediately after the filing of the complaint 
and the investigation was begun. 

The fair housing practices committee member, who was asked to place a deposit on 
the apartment, was accused by respondent as being a "straw" for the complainant 
and his deposit refused. 

Another committee member applied for the apartment and a deposit was accepted. 
The investigative report was submitted to the Investigating Commissioner who 
made a determination of probable cause. He next, in accordance with the provisions of 
Chapter 570 of the Legislative Acts of 1961, filed a petition in Suffolk Superior Court 
In Equity praying the Court to enjoin respondent from selling, renting or otherwise 
making available to any other than the complainant the housing accommodation in 
question pending final determination by the Commission. 

The petition was made returnable in three days as provided by law. 



13 



At the subsequent hearing in Superior Court a temporary injunction was granted. 
By agreement the language of the prayer before the Court was changed to read that 
the restraining order would be in effect pending final determination of the Court 
in its next session. 

Respondents, through their attorney, offered the apartment to complainant 
provided he post three hundred dollars, to be kept for as long as he was a tenant, 
to defray any reasonable damage which might be done to the property by his children. 
The offer was refused when it ^v2is admitted that this qualification was not demanded 
of other tenants and applicants. 

As the procedure was begun to forward the petition for injunctive relief by 
changing its language, respondents, through their counsel, accepted complainant's 
application. (PrH-III-75-C) 

Public Accommodations 

1. The complainant, colored, charged that on August 16, 1961, he and his family 
drove to a lake to do some swimming. An attendant on duty refused him admission 
to the beach area declaring complainant had no Association membership card. Making 
known that he wished to purchase a membership card complainant alleged that 
he was told that the o^vner and head of the Association was not around and no one 
could say when she would be available. 

As complainant was leaving, an acquaintance a clergyman, white, drove up and 
was met by the attendant who when asked declared the admission fee to be thirty-five 
cents. The clergyman it is alleged asked why the complainant was not allowed to 
enter. He was told that a membership card was needed. The clergyman informed the 
attendant that he had no card and was told that the only requiremen;t from him 
was the admission fee of thirty-five cents. 

The complainant left after seeing his friend admitted to the beach. 

Investigation revealed that respondent was in fact a place of public accommodation 
and that the chief requisite in obtaining entrance to the beach was the payment of 
thirty-five cents. After investigation of this complaint, respK)ndent extended an invita- 
tion to complainant and his family to avail themselves of the facilities of the beach. 
The official public accommodations poster was conspicuously displayed at the entrance 
to the beach area. A written declaration of future policy of according equal treatment 
to all regardless of race, creed or color was forwarded to the Commission by the 
respondent. (PXI-23-C) 

2. On February 21, 1961, a colored woman filed a complaint against a beauty salon 
charging that she had been denied service solely because of her color in violation 
of the public accommodations law. 

The complainant alleged that she had been solicited by telephone to purchase a 
book of certificates for a certain sum. The certificates could be used to purchase 
services from varied businesses and establishments at a lower rate than was customary. 
She purchased the book. 

One of the business establishments on the list at which the certificates could be 
used was a beauty salon. According to the complainant, she visited the salon to 
have her hair dressed. The receptionist informed her that she could not be waited 
on that day but would have to make an appointment. When told that complainant's 
visit to the establishment was for the purpose of making an appointment the re- 
ceptionist listed complainant for the following Monday at 9:00 A.M. 

Complainant stated that when she appeared for her appointment, she was met by 
the receptionist who asked, "Didn't you get my message?" Complainant declared that 
she answered in the negative, and inquired as to the nature of the message. It was 
claimed that the receptionist told complainant, "You shouldn't have had this book. 
You had no right to this book. They will refund your money." Complainant asked 
what was meant that she should not have the book of certificates. The receptionist, 
according to the complainant replied, "All I know is you shouldn't have had this 
book. You have no right to it," 

Complainant next asked to whom the receptionist had given the message. The 
answer was, "I don't know. I called up your mother or somebody. I looked it up 
in the telephone book." Complainant informed the receptionist that her mother was 
not living. The receptionist then said, "I called somebody on Curve Street." Com- 



14 



plainant reix)rted that she told the receptionist that her address was on Auburn 
Street. Complainant then left the premises. 

The matter was investigated and an admission obtained that the president of the 
corporation had instructed the receptionist to cancel complainant's appointment. It 
was further admitted that the respondent officer had instructed the receptionist to 
call the organization selling the book certificates to inform them that Negroes should 
not be sold these coupons. 

Respondent was informed of the provisions of the public accommodations staitute 
and agreed to accord complainant the services of the establishment. 

Complainant subsequently reported obtaining a shampoo, set and haircut on tw^o 
difEerent occasions. Her reception was cordial on one occasion and cool on the other 
but not enough to deter her from patronizing the establishment at a later 
date. (PXI-2-C) 

NEW LEGISLATION 

Chap. 128 An Act Extending the Provisions of the Housing Discrimination Law 
TO THE Purchase or Acquisition of Certain Real Estate. 
Approved February 27, 1961 

"Section 4 of chapter 15 IB of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking out 
subsection 6, as amended by section 2 of chapter 239 of the acts of 1959, and inserting 
in place thereof the following subsection: — 

6. for the owner, lessee, sublessee, licensed real estate broker, assignee or managing 
agent of publicly assisted or multiple dwellings or contiguously located housing ac- 
commodations or other person having the right of ownershio or possession or right 
to rent or lease, or sell, or negotiate for the sale of such accommodations, or any agent 
or employee of such a person: — 

(a) to refuse to rent or lease or sell or negotiate for sale or otherwise ito deny to 
or withhold from any person or group of persons such accommodations because of 
the race, creed, color or national origin of such person or persons; {b) to discriminate 
against any person because of his race, creed, color or national origin in the terms, 
conditions or privileges of such accommodations or the acquisition thereof, or in the 
furnishing of facilities and services in connection therewith; or (c) to cause to be made 
any written or oral inquiry or record concerning the race, creed, color or national 
origin of the person seeking to rent or lease or buy any such accommodation." 

Chap. 570 An Act Authorizing A Commissioner of the Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination to Seek Injunctive Relief Against Persons Accused of 

Unlawful Discrimination. 
Approved May 27, 1961 

"The second paragraph of section 5 of chapter 15 IB of the General Laws, as most 
recently amended by section 4 of chapter 426 of the acts of 1957, is hereby further 
amended by inserting after the fourth sentence the following three sentences: — After 
a determination of probable cause hereunder such commissioner may also file a 
petition in equity in the superior court in any county in which the unlawful practice 
which is the subject of the complaint occurs, or in a county in which a respondent 
resides or transacts business, or in Suffolk county, seeking appropriate injunctive 
relief against such respondent, including orders or decrees restraining and enjoining 
him from selling, renting or otherwise making unavailable to the complainant any 
housing accommodations with respect to w^hich the complaint is made, pending the 
final determination of proceedings under this chapter; provided, however, that no 
such injunctive relief, order or decree shall be granted except after hearing, notice 
of which shall be given to the respondent at least three days prior thereto by the 
commissioner by registered mail directed to ithe respondents' last and usual place of 
abode, together with a copy of such petition. An affidavit of such notice shall forth- 
with be filed in clerk's office. The court shall have power to grant such temporary- 
relief or restraining orders as it deems just and proper." 



15 



HOUSING 

Public Housing 

The methods of tenant selection in use by various Public Housing Authorities as 
well as the degree of integration of non-white occupants are surveyed each year. 

The housing practices of twenty-seven Public Housing Authorities were surveyed. 
Ten of the Authorities studied have been surveyed for five consecutive years. The 
remaining seventeen were studied last year so that comparative figures are available. 

The statistics gathered in the survey follow: 



BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Progr.\m 


jso. of Units 


No. of Non-White Families 






Occupied 


1957 


1958 


1959 


lyoU 


lyoi 


Broadway 


yoy 


10 


1 


1 A 

14 


id 


^ A 


Camden Street 


/I 


let 


72 


71 


71 


1 1 


Commonweal th 




1 

18 


18 


17 


18 


1 Q 
10 


Faneuil 


4do 



2 


2 


2 



4 


4 


Fairmount 


QA1 


r\ 
U 





u 





A 


Archdale 


OQ'7 
AO J 






5 


c 




5 


D 


Orient Heights 






c 

i> 


A 

't 


5 




Gallivan Bouleva.rd 













A 



n 
u 


Franklin Field 




1 


40 


Ofi 
4u 


4U 


1 J 


South Street 


1 99 














n 
U 


Total 


Q C " 

O.OOD 


n[33 


"T34 


"134 


~T34 


loO 


Feder.\l Program 




1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


1961 


Charlestown 


1,139 





3 


3 


4 


5 


Mission Hill 


1,017 

















Lenox Street 


299 


306 


302 


300 


305 


299 


Orchard Park 


756 


93 


100 


107 


143 


179 


South End 


498 


241 


253 


255 


259 


271 


Heath Street 


412 


13 


15 


12 


2 


6 


East Boston 


413 

















Franklin Hill Avenue 


374 


14 


16 


17 


15 


16 


Whit tier Street 


197 


180 


185 


186 


188 


187 


Washington and Beech Sts. 


273 


4 


3 


3 


9 


2 


Mission Hill Extension 


572 


314 


386 


440 


476 


492 


Bromley Park 


713 


110 


158 


163 


171 


188 


Columbia Point 


1,452 


103 


137 


144 


166 


184 


Old Harbor Village 


1,000 

















Old Colony 


858 


3 


2 


2 


2 


9 


Total 


9,973 


1,381 


1,560 


1,632 


1,733 


1,831 


BROCKTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 






State Program 


No. of Units 




No. of Non-White 


Families 






Occupied 


1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


1961 




283 


6 


6 


5 


6 


10 


Federal Program 


100 


7 


9 


7 


7 


7 


CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY 






State Program 


No. of Units 




No. of Non-White 


Families 






Occupied 


1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


1961 


Woodrow Wilson Court 


69 


3 


2 


2 


2 


2 


Jefferson Park 


109 


4 


6 


9 


11 


7 


Lincoln Way 


60 


3 


2 


2 


2 


1 


Roosevelt Towers 


228 


9 


23 


20 


20 


21 


Jackson Gardens 


46 


1 














JefEerson Park Extension 


200 


7 


11 


11 


13 


9 


Total 


712 


~2f 




"46" 


48 


^0 


Federal Program 




1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


1961 


Washington Elms 


324 


38 


38 


37 


39 


38 


Putnam Gardens 


123 


42 


43 


44 


45 


42 


New Towne Court 


294 


8 


10 


9 


12 


14 


Corcoran 


152 


4 


3 


4 


4 


4 


Total 


893 


"92 


94 


94 


100 


~98 



16 



FALMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 


No. of Units 


No. of Non- White Families 






Occupied 


1937 


1938 


1939 


1960 


1961 


Amvets Avenue 


50 


3 


3 


4 


6 


5 


Mayflower 


24 

















Total 


74 


3 


3 


4 


6 


5 




HOLYOKE HOUSING AUTHORITY 






State Program 


No. of Units 




No. of Non-White Families 






Occupied 


1937 


1938 


1939 


1960 


1961 


Beaudoin Village 


219 


1 


2 


1 


8 


J 


Minnie R. Dwight Village 42 

















Edwin A. Seibel Apartments 40 

















Total 


301 


1 


2 


1 


8 


1 


Federal Program 




1937 


1938 


1939 


1960 


1961 


Jackson Parkway 


219 











1 





Lyman Terrace 


167 


1 




1 


3 


4 


Henry Toepfert Apartments 98 










5 


5 


Total 


484 


1 


1 


2 


9 


9 


NEW BEDFORD HOUSING 


AUTHORITY 






State Program 


No. of Units 




No. of Non-White Families 






Occupied 


1937 


1938 


1939 


1960 


1961 


Parkdale 


100 


3 


3 


2 


3 


3 


Blue Meadows 


150 


13 


13 


14 


14 


14 


Nashmont 


80 

















Crestview-Westwood 


(Elderly) 75 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


Total 


405 


18 


18 


18 


19 


19 


Federal Program 




1937 


1938 


1939 


1960 


1961 


Bay Village 


200 


119 


136 


139 


143 


155 


Presidential Heights 


200 


3 


1 





2 





Brickenwood 


300 


24 


18 


18 


18 


1 R. 


Westlawn 


200 


34 


36 


41 


42 


44 


Total 


900 


180 


191 


198 


205 


215 




PITTSFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY 






State Program 


No. of Units 




No. of Non-White Families 






Occupied 


1937 


1958 


1939 


1960 


1961 


Wilson Park 


126 

















Francis Plaza 


40 














I 


Wahconah Heights 


68 

















Total 


234 














1 


Federal Program 




1937 


1938 


1939 


1960 


1 yoL 


Victory Hill 


99 





2 


2 










PLYMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 






State Program 


No. of Units 




No. of Non-White Families 






Occupied 


1937 


1938 


1939 


1960 


1961 


Olmstead Terrace and 












Standish Court 


40 











1 


2 



17 



SPRINGFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program No. of Units 




No. of Non-White Families 






Uccupiea 


1957 


1958 


1959 


lyoU 


1961 


Reed Village 


200 


1 9. 

15 


13 


15 


15 


1 Q 


Robinson Gardens 


136 


6 


6 


3 


12 


12 


Duggan Park 


196 


6 


5 


10 


12 


16 


Carpe Diem 


75 


1 


9 


2 


1 


1 


Harr)- P. Hogan Apartments 


22 










3 


Total 


607 


26 


26 


30 


40 


50 


Federal Program 




1957 


1958 








Lucy Mallory Village 


34 


3 


Closed 









WORCESTER HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 



No. of Units 



Curtis Apartments 
Lakeside Apartments 
George F. Booth Memorial 
Apartments 

Total 

Federal Program 

Great Brook Valley Gardens 
Mayside Lane Apartments 
Addison Streets Apartments 

Total 



No. of Non-White Families 



cupied 


1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


1961 


390 


3 


3 


7 


9 


5 


204 








1 








75 

















669 


3 


3 


8 


9 


5 




1957 


1958 


1959 


1960 


1961 


600 


20 


20 


15 


17 


19 


50 













50 













700 


20 


20 


15 


17 


19 



ARLINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 

Menotomy 
Housing for Elderly 
Drake Village 

Total 



No. of Units 
Occupied 
176 

56 



232 



No. of Non-White Families 
1960 1961 
• 




State Progranf 
General Pat ton 



BARNSTABLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 



No. of Units 
Occupied 
40 



No. of Non-White Families 
1960 1961 
4 10 



BROOKLINE HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program No. of Units 

Occupied 

Egmont Street Development 114 
High Street Development 117 
Marion Street Development 60 



No. of Non-White Families 
1960 1961 






Total 



291 











State Program 



Federal Program 



CHELSEA HOUSING AUTHORITY 



No. of Units 
Occupied 
294 

200 



No. of Non-White Families 
1960 1961 




1960 




1961 
1 



18 



EVERETT HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

Occupied 1960 1961 

Corbett Hill 268 17 

^Vinthrop Road 60 3 

Cherry Street 64 3 

Golden Age Circle 40 

Proctor Road 120 — 1 

Total 552 24 



FRAMINGHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

Occupied 1960 1961 

258 1 1 

Federal Progr-^m 1960 1961 

125 1 1 



LAWRENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 



Stadium Courts 
Hancock Courts 


Occupied 
256 
195 


1960 
1 
3 


1961 
3 
3 


Total 


451 


4 


6 


Federal Program 
Merrimack Courts 
Beacon Courts 


292 
208 


1960 
4 
1 


1961 
4 



Total 


500 


5 


4 



LOWELL HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 





Occupied 


1960 


1961 


Gorham Street 


276 


1 





Lakeview Avenue 


12 








Aiken Street 


20 








Concord Street 


16 








Hale Street 


15 








Total 


339 


1 





Federal Program 




1960 


196J 


North Common Village 


536 








Chelmsford Street 


150 








Bishop Markham Village 


372 





3 


Total 


1,088 





3 



MALDEN HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

Occupied 1960 1961 

282 2 1 

Federal Program 250 10 12 



MEDFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

Occupied 1960 1961 

150 2 2 

Federal Program 150 2 2 



19 



State Program 



Federal Program 



REVERE HOUSING 

No. of Units 
Occupied 
242 
100 



AUTHORITY 
No. 



of Non-White Families 
1960 1961 





State Program 

Mystic River 
Clarendon Hill 
Capon Court 

Total 

Federal Program 
Mystic View 
Highland Garden 

Total 



SOMERVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. o 

Occupied 
240 
216 
64 

520 

216 
42 

258 



1960 


1961 














1 


1 


1 


1 


1960 


1961 


1 


1 













TAUNTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 

Riverside Apartments 
Highland Heights 

Total 

Federal Program 
Fairfax Gardens 



No. of Units 
Occupied 
102 
40 

142 
150 



No. of Non-White Families 
1960 1961 
10 11 
2 2 



12 

1960 



13 

1961 
13 



State Program 

West End 
East End 
Waverly Avenue 

Total 



WATERTOWN HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units 
Occupied 
168 
60 
40 



No. of Non-White Families 
1960 1961 


— 



268 



State Program 



WEYMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No 



No. of Units 
Occupied 
208 



of Non-White Families 
1960 1961 
1 1 



State Program 



WINTHROP HOUSING AUTHORITY 



No. of Units 
Occupied 
78 



No. of Non-White Families 
1960 1961 




WOBURN HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 

Creston Avenue 
Webster Avenue 
Liberty Avenue 

Total 

Federal Program 
Spring Court 



No. of Units 
Occupied 
68 
60 
48 

176 
100 



No. of Non-White Families 
1960 1961 








1960 
1 



1961 
1 



20 



Public Hearing 

One complaint under the Fair Housing Practices Law went to a public hearing in 
1961. This represents one of two housing complaints where the conciliatory process 
failed to eliminate housing discrimination. 

The other complaint was settled in 1960. They represent the fourth and fifth 
complaints to be carried to public hearings in the fifteen year history of the MCAD. 
Fowler v. A. J. Colangelo et al. 

A Negro contract analyst employed by the Air Force sought to rent an apartment 
in a new development five minutes from his place of work. He was told that he was 
imacceptable as a tenant because he was unmarried. Investigation revealed that several 
others had applied for and been offered apartments. A finding of probable cause was 
made to credit the allegations of discrimination because of color. All subsequent at- 
tempts at conciliation failed and the complaint was noticed for formal hearing. After 
the notice for a formal hearing was served the respondent went into Superior Court 
seeking a declaratory judgment that the Fair Housing Law of 1959 was unconstitutional 
and that the Commission be enjoined from proceeding to a formal hearing until the 
question of constitutionality was disjDosed of by the courts of the Commonwealth. The 
request for an injunction was denied and the respondents were required to exhaust 
their statutory remedies before the Commission. A formal public hearing was sched- 
uled by the Commission for early January 1961. 

Following this hearing the following "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and 
Order" were issued: 

Upon all evidence at the hearing herein the Massachusetts Commission Against 
Discrimination, by Presiding Hearing Commissioner Chairman Mildred H. Mahoney 
and Hearing Commissioner Ben G. Shapiro, finds that the respondents A. J. Colangelo, 
Glenmeadow Apartments and John Nahigian, Auburndale Realty, herein have engaged 
in unlawful discriminatory practices as defined in Chapter 151B, Section 4, Sub-section 
6 of the Massachusetts General Laws, and states its findings of fact as follows: 

FINDINGS OF FACT 
The Complainant 

1. The complainant, Maurice Fowler, is a Negro, unmarried, age 30, employed as 
a Contract Negotiator for the Electronics System Center of the United States Air 
Force located at Waltham, Massachusetts. Fowler holds top secret government security 
clearance, a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics, and a commission as 1st Lieuten- 
ant in the United States Army Reserve. 

2. On or about July 9, 1960, Fowder sought to rent an apartment in Glenmeadow 
Apartments at the advertised price of $145 per month. Glenmeadow Apartments are 
located about five minutes away from Fowler's place of employment. Since November, 
1960 he has resided near Central Square, Cambridge in an apartment comparable in 
accommodations to the one he sought in Glenmeadow. He has a ten-month lease on 
the Cambridge apartment at a rental of $175 per month. It takes him about one half- 
hour to commute to work in Waltham in the morning and about forty to forty-five 
minutes to commute from work in the afternoon. 

The Housing Accommodations 

3. The premises, Glenmeadow Apartments, is a new multiple apartment dwelling 
located at 1105 Lexington Street, Waltham, Massachusetts. 

4. There are 110 units rented for permanent residence purposes, for one of which 
the complainant had applied. The basic price per rental unit is $145 with a somewhat 
lower rental for basement units. 

5. At the time of the events complained of the development was only partly com- 
plete, but there Avere some accommodations available for occupancy as early as July 
and August, 1960. 

6. A rental office consisting of a "model apartment" located in the development 
was established in July, 1960. 



21 



7. The construction of the apartment development in question is not now and 
never has been subsidized or otherwise aided either in whole or in part by any public 
funds, whether federal or state. 

The Respondents 

8. The respondent A. J. Colangelo is the owner of Glenmeadow Apartments. He 
possesses detailed knowledge of the day-to-day procedures in renting and leasing of 
the units in the development. 

9. The respondent John Nahigian is the owner of Auburndale Realty, located at 
345 Auburn Street, Auburndale, Massachusetts. He is the rental agent of Glenmeadow 
Apartments wuth the power to deal generally with the public with the exhibiting, 
renting, leasing of the apartments therein in behalf of the respondent Colangelo. 

10. The respondent Nahigian conducts the business of renting Glenmeadow Apart- 
ment units from the "model aparatment" located in the development, where he and 
his staff interview and show the apartment to prospective tenants, process leases and 
applications, and accept deposits. 

The Unlawful Discriminatory Practices 

11. The respondents have discriminated and are discriminating against the com- 
plainant by refusing to rent or lease and by otherwise denying to and withholding 
from him, because of his color, housing accommodations located in multiple dwelling 
premises at 1105 Lexington Street, Waltham, Massachusetts known as Glenmeadow 
Apartments: 

a. The respondents deliberately misrepresented to Maurice Fowler the date 
upon which the apartment he sought would be ready for occupancy; 

b. The respondents accorded to Maurice Fowler upon the occasion of his ap- 
plication for an apartment different treatment from that customarily accorded white 
applicants; 

c. The respondents accorded the application of Maurice Fowler for an apart- 
ment, after it was filed, different treatment from that accorded the applications of 
white applicants in circumstances substantially similar to those of Maurice Fowler, 
apart from color; 

d. The respondents adopted and carried out a policy of deliberate delay in 
taking action upon the application of Maurice Fowler; 

e. The respondents refused to rent or lease to Maurice Fowler the apartment 
he sought after receipt of all necessary information to establish his qualifications for 
tenancy in all respects, according to the standards set by the respondents themselves in 
accepting white tenants. 

12. The respondents' assertions that their failure and refusal to rent or lease to the 
compainant the apartment which he sought was based on a policy of not renting to 
bachelors was definitively controverted by the fact that between the time of the filing 
of the complaint and the formal hearing thereon there were nine bachelors residing 
in Glenmeadow Apartments. 

ORDER 

Upon the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 

151B, of the General Laws of Massachusetts, it is hereby 
ORDERED, by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 
That the respondents A. J. Colangelo and John Nahigian, their agents, servants, 

employees, assigns and successors shall: 

1. Cease and desist from: 

a. Denying to and withholding from complainant, Maurice Fowler, an apart- 
ment, together with the privileges and services and facilities relating thereto, at prem- 
ises 1105 Lexington Street, Waltham, Massachusetts, known (and herein and after 
referred to) as Glenmeadow Apartments. 

b. Giving consideration to the factors of race, creed, color or national origin in 
seeking and handling applications for apartments at Glenmeadow Apartments, in 
making inquiry as to the qualifications for tenancy of applicants for apartments at 



22 



Glenmeadow Apartments, in passing upon such qualifications and in accepting or 
rejecting said applicants, in negotiating for and executing leases at Glenmeadow 
Apartments and in giving occupancy to tenants at Glenmeadow Apartments, and in I 
the conditions and privileges of tenancy at Glenmeadow Apartments and in the furn- 
ishing of facilities or services in connection therewith. 

2. Take the following affirmative action, which in ithe judgment of the Massachu- 
setts Commission Against Discrimination, will effectuate the Massachusetts Fair Hous- 
ing Practices Law: 

a. With respect to the housing accommodations sought by complainant: 

(i) Set aside for, and offer .to lease forthwith to, the complainant, the 
leasing period to commence at such time as the complainant can con- 
veniently iterminate or satisfactorily modify his present rental arrange- 
ments, an apartment of the type for which he applied at Glenmeadow 
Apartments or a substantially similar apartment, at a rental of $145 per 
month, for a period of not less than two years from the date of the 
right to occupancy under the lease. The complainant shall have a 
reasonable period of time to accept or reject said offer to lease. 

(ii) If the complainant accepts such offer to lease, the respondents shall 
execute a written lease of the apartment to the complainant within 
five (5) days after receipt of written notice of such acceptance. The 
terms and conditions of such lease shall be substantially similar to 
the terms and conditions of leases executed by tenants of other apart- 
ments at Glenmeadow Apartments during the period August 1, 1960 
to December 31, 1960; and the complainant shall be accorded sub- 
stantially the same privileges, services, benefits and rental concessions 
accorded to the most favored tenant or tenants in Glenmeadow Apart- 
ments, whether such privileges, services, benefits or rental concessions 
have been granted by terms of lease or otherwise to such tenant or 
tenants. 

(iii) If Ithe complainant accepts the apartment and executes a lease therefor 
as aforesaid, respondents shall make said apartment available to the 
complainant fully ready for occupancy within ten (10) days after the 
execution of the lease, or at such other reasonable time as the com- 
plainant shall request. 

b. Apply the same standards of evaluation to all applicants for apartments at 
Glenmeadow Apartments, without regard to race, creed, color or national origin. 

c. Issue written instructions in a form satisfactory to the Commission to all 
agents, servants and employees of Glenmeadow Apartments and Auburndale Realty, 
and to all other persons now engaged or employed, or who may hereafter to be em- 
ployed or engaged within one year of ithe date of this order by the respondents, 
explaining the requirements and objectives of ;the Massachusetts Fair Housing Prac- 
tices Law and advising each such person of his individual responsibility for compliance , 
with the Massachusetts Fair Housing Practices Law and his obligation to make such j 
compliance meaningful and effective. Copies of such instructions signed by the said | 
persons individually and acknowledging receipt and understanding thereof shall be j 
transmitted to the Commission by the respondents. 

d. Post the Commission Notice conspicuously in easily accessible and well- 
lighted places at Glenmeadow Apartments, where it may be readily observed by those | 
seeking housing accommodations or facilities or services in connection therewith. i 

e. Transmit to the Commission forthwith a statement listing each of the apart- i 
ments at Glenmeadow Apartments, which on the date of this order, was not rented 
or leased, giving the designation of the apartment, the number of rooms and the rental 
being asked. 

f. Include forthwith in their usual advertising media for the next ninety (90) | 
days in all advertisements for Glenmeadow Apartments including newspaper, brochure, j 
pamphlet, booklet, sign or otherwise, a separate statement in bold type couched in a 
form satisfactory to the Commission giving notice that Glenmeadow Apartments are | 
subject to the Massachusetts Fair Housing Practices Law and that the apartments | 



23 



therein are available for rental without reference to race, creed, color or national 
origin. 

g. Compensate the complainant in full for the following monetary damages 
incurred by him on account of the respondent's discrimination: 

(i) The difference between the rental for an apartment at Glenmeadow 
Apartments and the rental he paid to live elsewhere from November 1, 
1960 to March 1, 1961 or to such other date as the complainant may 
conveniently occupy an apartment in Glenmeadow Apartments, which- 
ever date comes first, 
(ii) In the event the complainant accepts a lease at Glenmeadow Apart- 
ments, the cost of moving his furniture from his present residence to 
Glenmeadow Apartments, 
(iii) In the event the complainant accepts a lease at Glenmeadow Apart- 
ments, any reasonable amount he may be obligated to pay in order 
to terminate or modif)' his present rental arrangements. 

3. Notify the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination at its offices at 41 
Tremont Street, Boston 8, Massachusetts, in writing wathin thirty (30) days of the 
date of service of this order, as to steps respondents have taken to comply with each 
item in this Order. 

Dated: January 24, 1961 

Boston, Massachusetts 
The respondents did not accept this order of the Commission. 

The respondent, Mr, Colangelo, raised the issue of the constitutionality of the 
statute. He challenged on the score that the apartment building was entirely financed 
by private funds. The other respondent, Mr. Nahigian, in addition to raising the 
constitutional issue questioned the propriety of the order. At present the issue is 
Ijefore the Massachusetts Supreme Court. A decision is expected in the near future. 



FAIR EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES 

The Commission was interested to find out the results which might be due to the 
increasing numbers of Negro children in the public schools of certain cities of the 
Commonwealth. Six cities w^ere selected in which the 1960 Census indicated increases 
in the number of Negro residents, viz: Boston, Cambridge, New Bedford, Pittsfield, 
Springfield and ^Vorcester. The school departments of each of these cities were con- 
tacted through the offices of the superintendent of schools. 

It was thought that it w^ould be useful information if the Commission could find out 
the general distribution of Negro children in the various schools of each city and get 
some idea of the trends in enrollment. Especially it was the intent of the inquiry to 
find out if there existed real integration in the schools and if there appeared to be any 
significant changes in percentages of white and Negro children as compared with the 
total numbers of children in the neighborhoods. 

The superintendents of schools in most cases gave estimates where actual figures 
were not available. Two superintendents, in Boston and Springfield, seemed to speak 
the minds of others in answering that no records are kept of color of children, con- 
sequently they preferred to have no enumeration of membership made by color. None 
of the permanent record cards of the pupils through the grades, and even through high 
school, carry- any information concerning color, creed or ethnic origin in accordance 
with a directive given out by the State Department of Education some years ago. 

In the City of Pittsfield the Negro enrollment amounted to about 2% of the total 
enrollment of 11,820 pupils. Of this number only 1.4% were attending high school. 
There were only three out of nineteen elementary schools in the city which have no 
Negro children. There was some concentration of Negro membership in six schools in 
the older section of the city. There are found the oldest school buildings but they 
were reconditioned a few years ago and are fully as desirable as the newest buildings 
in the newer parts of the city. Teachers are hired and promoted without regard to 
color or religion or ethnic origin. There is complete integration on the play-field, at 



24 



school functions and, of course, in the classrooms. The Supervisor of Instruction uses 
the same scale of judging teaching efficiency in all the schools and intends to have the 
same high standards sought for in all sections of the city. 

In Boston the School Department provided the Commission with the services of one 
of the assistant superintendents who personally conducted the field representative on 
a tour of some of the elementary and junior high schools of the city. No figures of 
membership were available but data from an outside study made a few years ago were 
used as a guide in selecting the schools to visit. These schools had a preponderance 
of Negro children in their enrollments. It appears that the bulk of the Negro enroll- 
ment is in ithe section of the city where the Negro population is most heavily centered. 
From the trip it was professionally deduced that there is a good feeling of comradeship 
in the classrooms, corridors and playgrounds and the same standards of teaching and 
professional backgrounds seem to prevail in schools regardless of their color member- 
ship. Boston School Committee regulations permit freedom of choice in selecting 
schools, subject to spaces available and courses studied at various grades. Teachers are 
selected to fill vacancies from lists of candidates who have taken and passed successfully 
the City of Boston examinations for teachers. The marks obtained in these examina- 
tions indicate the position on the list where the names of candidates are placed and 
selections are made from the top of the list — ^no record of color, religion or ethnic 
origin is indicated on the list. 

In Cambridge, the Commission had much the same ex{>erience as in Boston. A 
number of schools, elementary and secondary, were visited. The superintendent in- 
dicated thait all of his fourteen schools have some Negro children in their membership. 
Those schools which might have a few more Negro children than others were esj>ecially 
visited by classrooms and comparable pupil-teacher relationship was noted as in schools 
in other parts of the city. Teacher employment and promotion is much the same as 
in the City of Boston. 

In Worcester, the superintendent provided the Commission with the services of one 
of his assistant superintendents who collected estimated data to show ithat about 11% 
of the total elementary school membership (i.e. approximately 250) is Negro while 
Negro students make up about 3% of the four city high schools. The numbers of 
Negro children who go from the elementary grades into one or the other of the two 
vocational (Girls' and Bos' respectively) high schools make up for some of the differ- 
ences in percentages. One elementary school may have as many as 30% Negro mem- 
bership while other elementary schools have from 2% to 20% in the six districts con- 
tacted. Qualifications for teachers are the same as to training and years of experience 
in each school district. Promotions and elevations to piincipalships and assistant 
prindpalships are made without regard to color, religion or race. Changes in housing 
conditions made necessary by recent road building plans which cut through certain 
sections of the city have resulited in a more widespread housing of the Negro popula- 
tion of Worcester. This seems to account for the more general distribution of Negro 
children in the elementary and junior high schools. 

In New Bedford there was a wide distribution of Negro membership in both ele- 
mentary and secondary (one high school and three junior high) schools. Teachers are 
selected and promoted without regard to color, religion or ethnic background. 

A new superintendenit of schools, promoted from assistant superintendent last 
summer, plans to continue with the same standards of selecting and upgrading teach- 
ers in 'the system. Integration seems to be the accepted and natural procedures in 
pupil relations throughout ithe city. 

In Springfield the superintendent stated that there had been a growth in the Negro 
population as the census figures indicate. The present administration contends that 
all children are treated alike and that all elementary placement is predicated on the 
geographical district in which children live. All four high schools are open to all stu- 
dents, subject to their having taken the proper courses in the (seven) junior high 
schools. An extensive system of guidance and counselling is made available and all 
pupils are required to plan their courses in conference with those teachers who have 
been professionally trained in this field. 

In Lynn and in the Cape Cod area, no special investigation was made but good in- 
tegration was noted at all grade levels. In Hyannis, for example, children, both white 
and colored, were enjoying school social events together and the building principals 



25 



indicated that no distinction is made as to color in any class arrangements, seating, etc. 
In Lynn both academic and athletic recognition is given on the basis of accomplish- 
ment and "color never has anything to do with it." 

In each of the cities studied it was stated emphatically that pupils are distributed in 
schools according to the neighborhoods in which they live. This principle seems to 
be very much of a New England custom which Massachusetts school departments have 
inherited. Consequently when congestion of any group into one section of a town or 
city occurs it is bound to result in a preponderance of that group in the enrollment 
of that neighborhood school. This situation might get to the point where the minority 
group members in a school become so large that so-called de facto segregation appears. 

The cities mentioned in this study have School Committee rules in operation which 
presume to give parents the right to choose the schools in which their children may 
be registered. Groups have raised the question as to whether the cities should provide 
bus transportation if the school selected happens to be in another, widely separated 
section of the city. While this question is being considered by cities in other states, 
the Commission has not found much enthusiasm for such a decision by the cities thus 
far involved in Massachusetts. 

The Commission has emphasized its belief that the high standards of educational 
procedure in Massachusetts should provide equal learning opportunities for ALL 
children. This should include both the quality of trained teachers and the housing 
and equipment for all sections of a city. In the sections visited it seemed that an effort 
is being made to maintain these qualities. The printed rules and regulations on such 
matters as transfer, selection and promotion of teachers are clear and the authorities 
state that no discrimination is involved. New buildings and/or reconditioning of exist- 
ing, often crowded buildings, are needed and being sought for as fast as rising school 
budgets will allow. 

The Commission will continue to urge schools to preserve the reputation which the 
state has established of Equal Educational Opportunities for ALL children of the 
Commonwealth. 

EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS 

Inquiries 

Exclusive of those who filed complaints 738 people visited the office of the Commis- 
sion to make inquiries concerning their rights and obligations under the provisions of 
the civil rights statutes. 

Speaking Engagements 

The Commission members and staff filled 144 speaking engagements during the past 
year. These appearances before civic, religious, fraternal, educational, business and 
real estate organizations enable the Commission to further its public information 
program. 

Conferences 

The Commission members and staff conducted fifty-nine conferences throughout the 
Commonwealth with representatives of business, education, realtors, minority groups, 
labor, civic organizations, religious organizations and community relations councils. 
Teaching Unit: "Discrimination — Danger to Democracy" 

The Commission distributed this year a revised edition of the Teaching Unit: "Dis- 
crimination — Danger to Democracy." This valuable teaching aid which was originally 
written by Dr. Thomas J. Curtin, State Director of Civic Education, was revised and 
brought up to date this past year. Copies have been made available to all secondary 
schools in the State and to classes at the State Teachers' Colleges. A number of study 
groups are using the booklet as a guide to discussion meetings on civil rights. Both 
public and independent secondary schools are finding the condensed information of 
great value in such courses as Problems of Democracy, Sociology, U. S. History and 
Government in the Social Studies Program. 

This publication summarizes the objectives in this study of civil rights and directs 
the student or reader through an analysis of the origins, practices and high costs of 
prejudice. Ample suggestions are made for motivating interest and various procedures 



26 



are enumerated for helping the readers to overcome prejudices. Care has been taken , 
to supplement all comments witli lists of readings and available pamphlets which may I 
be easily secured. t 
Nearly half of the public high schools and most of the independemt secondary schools ! 
have taken advantage of the availability of this study unit. Sufficienit copies have been | 
given any school that desires them so that each student may have a take-home copy | 
for further reading in the home. In some instances high schools were hesitant about j 
using the unit on the ground that either (1) there was no minority group problem in 
that high school or (2) that the study would be an embarrassment ito minority group 
members in the class. Eventual use of the booklet resulted in favorable comments 
from the teachers and principals in these same schools. 

Radio Spot Announcements 

In November, 1961, sixty-one radio stations in Massachusetts were sent sets of thirteen 
radio spot announcements. Broadcast time for the one-minute or less announcements 
is provided as a public service in acquainting the general public with their rights 
under the laws administered by the Commission. Some illustrations of the announce- 
ments are quoted below: 

It's a law . . . that in Massachusetts, you may not be denied a job — or fair 
treatment on the job — because of your race, color, religious creed, national origin, 
age or ancestry. For full details on the law, and how it affects YOU, write the 
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 41 Tremont Street, Boston, 
Massachusetts. 

2. 

In Massachusetts, we have a law to protect our people from discrimination in 
employment, education, places of public accommodation, public and private hous- 
ing. No person may suffer discrimination because of race, color, national origin, 
age or ancestry. For information, write the Massachusetts Commission Against 
Discrimination, 41 Tremont Street, Boston. 

3. 

Are you between the ages of 45 and 65? Do you know that Massachusetts has 
a law prohibiting discrimination against qualified workers because of age? The 
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination at 41 Tremont Street, Boston, 
administers this law and also laws covering fair treatment in education, public 
accommodations and housing! 

4. 

It is almost 16 years ago that the Massachusetts FEPC, now the Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination, came into being to administer a law that 
forbids discrimination in emplo)Tnent because of race, color, religious creed, na- 
tional origin, age or ancestry. This is not a law put on the statute books, and 
thereafter to be forgotten. For the State Commission was set up when the Law 
was passed, to investigate complaints, to carry on an educational program . . . 
and to see that ALL citizens are given an equal chance on-ithe-job. This same law 
also protects your right to fair treatment in places of public accommodation, edu- 
cation, and in public and private housing. For details on the Law ... or for any 
questions you may have concerning your rights under the Law, write or visit the 
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 41 Tremont Street, Boston 

Massachusetts has entered upon a new era of fair housing practices. There is 
now in effect, as a result of state legislation passed in 1959, an anti-discriminatory 
law covering certain types of private housing, including apartments. This makes it 
illegal for an owner or his agent to discriminate in the sale or rental of multiple 
dwellings, consisting of three or more units, and in developments of ten or more 
houses if these units are contiguously located. 

Most Massachusetts citizens will abide by the letter and spirit of this law. 
However, the denial of opportunity to rent or buy merely because of color, religion 
or national origin should be brought to the attention of the Massachusetts Com- 
mission Against Discrimination, the state agency which administers the Com- 
monwealth's civil rights statutes. The office of the Commission is located at 41 
Tremont Street, and its telephone number is CApitol 7-3111. 



27 



Survey of Department Stores re: Age Amendment 

Between March 1961 and June 1961 a survey of department stores in Greater Boston 
was conducted. The object of the survey was to contact stores considered representative 
in their fields and emphasis was placed on emplo)Tnent problems relative to persons 
in the forty-five to sixty-five age group. 

For the purpose of this survey 190 stores or retail outlets were checked. Of this num- 
ber 115 were novelty department stores; fifty-five were department stores; thirteen 
were food chain stores and one was a retail delivery service. 

Of the total number of 17,644 employees, 7,004 were over forty-five years of age. Of 
that number 779 had been hired during the past year. 

Employment application forms were maintained by sixteen companies, nine of which 
made inquiry into age or date of birth. 

Five companies of the nine felt that age inquiry was necessary for the following 
reasons: in order to determine if the applicant was old enough to be hired (over 16 
years of age); in certain categories, i.e. managerial trainee jobs and for obtaining 
older personnel in order to maintain a balance among employees. 

When questioned whether it was felt that employment of persons over forty-five years 
of age presented a problem, most employers stated that age was no barrier to employ- 
ment. The preponderance of employers indicated that to be forty-five years of age or 
older was more often an advantage rather than a disadvantage particularly in sales 
positions. 

In all instances the same wages, rates, terms and conditions of employment prevailed 
regardless of age. In regard to pension plans and profit sharing plans, the same con- 
ditions obtained. The older new employee usually suffered a penalty by virtue of his 
age in that he or she woidd w^ork a lesser number of years for the company. The 
pension plans involved are based on the number of years of service. 

The following typical comments were made by management regarding employees 
over forty-five years of age: 

"Customers tend to seek out older salespeople for advice." 

"Older workers have a greater feeling of responsibility for their jobs." 

"Applicants over forty-five years of age have a definite advantage over a younger 
applicant." 

"Older employees are more desirable because they are more reliable and can handle 
customers better." 

"Older employees seem to appreciate their jobs more." 
"Older workers are more satisfactor)' and stable." 

This survey was conducted for the most part during the period following Easter 
sales. As a result the figures reflect a j>eriod normally considered as a time of low 
employment for part time and temporary employees. Percentages relating to part time 
and temporar\' employees were comparable to those pertaining to regular employees. 

Council Activities 

Chapter 151B of the General Laws, Section 3, Paragraph 8, empowers the Commis- 
sion "To create such advisor)' agencies and conciliation councils ... as in its judgment 
will aid in effectuating the purposes of this chapter . . . Such councils shall be com- 
posed of representative citizens serving without pay. . ." 

The main interest of the Commission this year continues to be in housing and the 
same interest is expressed by the regional councils. 

State Advisory Council 

The Commission is most fortunate in having eight Councils that work closely with 
it in carrying on its educational program. 

The State Advisory Council advises on state-wide policies. This year its particular 
concerns were: 

1. Studies of school enrollment from the standpoint of integration. 

2. Request for first branch office. 

Springfield Council 

The seven regional councils interpret the Commission to their communities. These 
Councils are often consulted by persons who wish to bring some matter to the atten- 



28 



don of the Commission. This year an exception to this quite usual procedure occurred. 
There was an attempt by a group in Springfield for a branch office, but the Springfield 
Ck>undl Against Discrimination, the educational arm of the Commission, was not con- 
sulted. Neither was the entire Commission. A bill, House No. 1202 to establish a 
Springfield branch office, was presented to the legislature on which the Commission 
took no stand and which was defeated. 

At the December 15, 1960 meeting of the Springfield Council Against Discrimination, 
the Council asked the Commission to study the situation and if there was found to be 
need of an office to ask for a sufficient appropriation to establish one. In the meantime 
field representatives would come to Springfield as had been the custom and stay as long 
as necessary to receive complaints and investigate complaints. From December 15, 1960 
to April 28, 1961, the date of the next Council meeting, there had been twelve com- 
plaints from Springfield. 

The Council also suggested that as soon as field representatives were available (com- 
plaint investigating always comes first) a survey should be made of industrial concerns. 

At the Council meeting on December 1, 1961 the Commission reported it believed 
there was a situation that could best be solved by establishing an office in Springfield. 
The Commission in its report stated that not only was it considering the increased 
number of complaints but also the Urban Renewal program which would cause the 
relocation of a large number of Negro and Puerto Rican families. With these factors 
in mind the Commission in July 1961, when making out its budget for 1963, which 
fiscal year begins July 1, 1962 and runs to June 30, 1963, requested funds to finance a 
branch office to be situated in Springfield. This office would serve both Springfield and 
the western part of ithe state. This proposal was approved by both the Springfield 
Council and the Berkshire County Council. 

Boston Council 

At the last meeting of the Boston Council the members were fortunate in having 
Mr. Ellis Ash, Deputy Development Administrator, Boston Redevelopment Authority 
to sf>eak on Urban Renewal. A gigantic job is being carried forward in Boston and 
the Council was anxious to hear Mr. Ash and to be able to ask questions concerning 
details of the general program and to offer its assistance. One of the major concerns 
was the housing of families displaced by either the reconstruction of old buildings or 
the construction of new ones. A building program in an old and established city poses 
more problems for the Negro group than for any other because there is not as much 
housing available to them. The Council wished to assure itself that everything would 
be done to minimize this problem. The fair housing laws should be a most definite 
help. 

New Bedford and Worcester Councils 

New Bedford has experienced all the difficulties that follow upon a relocation of 
industry. World situations have adversely effected many of its leading businesses and 
the ensuing loss of wages has made for a tense employment and housing situation. 
Council members felt it so necessary that landlords be aware of their responsibilities 
that a small committee of the New Bedford Council conducted a survey to determine 
landlord attitudes. In many instances the landlord was totally unaware of the fair 
housing laws and how ithey applied. The members of this same committee have made 
arrangements with radio stations relative to spot announcements and with newspapers 
regarding the publishing of the following statement concerning the Massachusetts Fair 
Housing Laws: 

"We wish to call to the attention of our subscribers and advertisers the Massa- 
chusetts Fair Housing Laws which cover the rental of apartments if such apart- 
ments are in an apartment building of three or more apartments. These laws 
also cover the sale of houses if such houses are in a development of ten or more 
houses continguously located. The laws forbid unequal treatment because of race, 
color, religious creed, national origin or ancestry. We do not knowingly publish 
advertisements that violate these laws. These laws are administered by the Massa- 
chusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 41 Tremont Street, Boston." 
The Worcester Council requested the Commission to make a study of new housing 
in developments of ten or more contiguous houses in and around Worcester. This will 



29 



be a continuing study and a full report will be made at the spring meeting. The 
following questions were asked: 

1. How many houses in the development. 

2. Was the housing poster posted where business is transacted and also in the 
model home if there was one. 

3. Are there any colored people in ithe project. 

4. Was any difficulty anticipated if colored people applied. 

All of these questions were answered fully and in a cooperative manner. 

In reply to question four the general response was that since there was a law cover* 
ing the situation the builder intended to comply with it. 

The extent of the survey covered seventeen communities of which fourteen were 
towns and three cities. There were 2,639 houses completed. Of that number, 2,182 
had been sold. 2,075 houses were in the planning stage. The price range ran from 
$13,500 to §42,000. There was very little evidence of integration. Out of all applicants 
for these houses, five colored applicants were reported. Two of these applicants had 
been offered housing but had not purchased, three had purchased and were living in 
the developments. 

At the November 17, 1961 meeting of the Worcester Council Against Discrimination, 
Mrs. Richard B. Roberts, a member of the League of Women Voters, gave a most in- 
teresting report on a survey of fifty families in Worcester displaced by the East Side 
Expressway. This study was made by the League of Women Voters. 

The Council was particularly interested in how the five Negro families reported in 
the survey made out in locating new homes. They all secured housing but it was 
more difficult for them to do so than for the white families. 

North Shore Council 

The North Shore Council has been discussing the possibility of a limited demo- 
graphic survey and some preliminary conferences have been held. The survey has been 
delayed because the Commission has been unable to release any field representatives 
from investigating cases long enough to give appreciable help in the survey. 

At the suggestion of a member of the North Shore Council a meeting was planned 
for early January 1962 of the Council, Commission, the Lynn and Salem Real Estate 
Boards. 

Berkshire County and Cape Cod Councils — Our Resort Areas 

The Berkshire County Council and the Cape Cod Council are both in famed resort 
areas. As such their influence is very wide. People come to the Berkshires and to the 
Cape from all over the country. What they see and hear convinces them, or doesn't, 
that Massachusetts is a leader in this struggle to make human beings more appreciative 
and fair minded about each other. 

The Berkshire Council is very sensitive to any evidences of discrimination and has 
corrected many through the individual efforts of its members. (This holds true of 
other councils as well). It is also responsible for some very thorough surveys. This 
year's most notable one was of the General Electric Company in Pittsfield. The Coun- 
cil found nothing to substantiate the claims made against the G. E. but voted to main- 
tain a continuing interest in the operation of that vital industry. 

In the spring it is planning to meet with representatives of every group particularly 
interested in accommodating summer visitors. The law requires public accommodations 
to be open without discrimination and the main emphasis will be for the Council to 
back up the law with goodwill and hospitality for all. 

The Cape Cod Council has had a very marked effect on the Cape. It was reported 
to the Commission that a criticism often heard last summer came from landlords who 
had catered to colored families. The Cape was becoming so integrated that their 
business suffered. 

The Chamber of Commerce refuses to list the names of any person who specifies that 
he will rent only to certain groups. Renting must be on the basis of no discrimination 
because of race, color, religious creed, national origin or ancestry. The same is true 
for the housing serving the needs of the personnel at Otis Air Base in that no listings 
for housing are accepted which specify restrictions by either owners or real estate 



30 



brokers; any listings already on file have been discarded and any cases of discrimination 
reported by airmen will be referred to the Commission. The Base Commander em- 
phasized his determination to initiate and maintain a policy of cooperation -w-ith the 
Commission. 

Other interesting facts which can be cited about the Cape: a colored man was 
elected to tlie Yarmouth Housing Authority for the first time; a colored man was 
elected to the Wareham Board of Selectmen for the first time; the Army appointed a 
colored man to be in charge of recruiting on the Cape; the Junior Chamber of Com- 
merce now has two colored members; a member of the Cape Cod Council Against Dis- 
crimination commented that for the first time in his capacity as supervisor for a large 
milk concern, he noted colored guests all over the Cape as far down as Provincetown, 
Truro and Orleans; there is now a colored Chaplain at Otis Air Force Base; two 
major public service companies have now increased their colored personnel; a large 
newspaper has a colored supervisor; the Hyannis and Falmouth Police Forces have 
increased their number of colored officers; the Commonwealth has appointed a colored 
Armorer for the Hyannis Armor)'; an increase in colored nurses has been noted in 
addition to one colored Supervisor of Nurses at the Cape Cod Hospital; a colored man 
is now on the Board of Trustees of this hospital. There has been an increase in colored 
teachers. In 1961 thirteen are now employed and one colored principal. A colored man 
is now one of the directors of the Falmouth Trust Company. 

State Advisory Council Membership 

John J. Desmond, Jr., Chairman, Former State Commissioner of Education 
Dr. Gordon W. Allport, Professor of Psychology, Harvard University 
Rt. Rev. Robert P. Barry, LL.D., St. Clement's Church, West Somerville 
Clarence Q. Berger, Dean of University Planning and Development, Brandeis Uni- 
versity 

Charles C. Dasey, Retired Manager, Cunard White Star Line; Secretary Emeritus, 

Rotary Club of Boston 
Roland B. Gittelsohn, Rabbi, Temple Israel of Boston 

Dr. Owen B. Kiernan, Commissioner of Education, Commonwealth of Massa- 
chusetts 

Rt. Rev. Anson Phelps Stokes, Jr., Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal 

Diocese of Massachusetts 
Howard Thurman, Dean, Marsh Chapel, Boston University 

Regional Council Membership 

Berkshire County 

Dr. James M. Burns, Chairman, Williams College 

Bruno Aron, Innkeeper, Festival House, Lenox 

Samuel E. Bloomberg, Attorney at Law 

Lincoln S. Cain, Attorney at Law 

John E. Coughlin, Painters' Local Union No. 94 

Bruce Crane, President, Crane & Company, Inc., Dalton 

W. Rankin Furey, President, Berkshire Life Insurance Company 

David L. Gunn, Berkshire County Branch, NAACP 

Nelson F. Hine, Pittsfield 

S. Harley Jones, President, E. D. Jones Corporation, Pittsfield 

G. B. Langford, Manager of Components Engineering, Ordnance Department, 

General Electric Company, Pittsfield 
Albert F. Litano, Local No. 225, lUE-CIO, Pittsfield 
Hans K. Maeder, Director, The Stockbridge School, Interlaken 
Emil Metropole, Realtor 

Feland A. Nevers, D.D.S., Western Mass. Dental Society, Pittsfield 
William J. Nolan, Vice President & Secretary, Sprague Electric Company, North 
Adams 

Arthur Burnham Phinney, Unitarian Church, Pittsfield 
Miss L. Alberta Pierce, NAACP 

I 



31 



Mrs. Henry N. Rollison, Lenox 

Jay C. Rosenfeld, Rosenfeld's, Inc., Pittsfield 

Dr. Edward J. Russell, Retired Superintendent of Schools, Pittsfield 
Samuel Sass, Pittsfield 

Paul A. Tamburello, Attorney at Law, United States Commissioner 

Frank T. Walker, Vice President, New England Ck)nference, NAACP, Pittsfield 

LaFayette W. Walker, NAACP, Pittsfield 

Boston 

Carl J. Gilbert, Chairman, Chairman of the Board, The Gillette Company 
Norman H. Abbott, Boston University, Director of Placement 

Julius Bernstein, Executive Secretary, Mass. AFL-CIO, Civil Rights Committee; 

Regional Director, Jewish Labor Committee 
Frederic C. Church, Senior Partner, Boit, Dalton & Church 
John V. Connolly, Business Manager, Boston Photo Engravers' Union No. 3 
Hubert L. Connor, Director of Apprenticeship, Division of Apprentice Training, 

Mass. Department of Labor and Industries 
Norris G. Davis, Funeral Director, Davis Funeral Home 

John E. Deady, Secretary-Treasurer, Boston Building and Construction Trades 
Council 

William H. Eastman, Second Vice President, John Hancock Mutual Life 
Insuance Company 

Stephen W. Fardy, Executive Secretary, Boston Allied Printing Trades Council 
Harold D. Hodgkinson, Chairman of the Board, William Filene's Sons Company 
Ernest A. Johnson, Vice President, Massachusetts Building Congress 
Kenneth J. Kelley, Secretary-Treasurer, Mass. State Labor Council, AFL-CIO 
Stephen E. McCloskey, Executive Secretary, Greater Boston Mass. Labor Council, 
AFL-CIO 

William C. Mercer, Vice President — Personnel, New England Telephone & 

Telegraph Company 
James H. Mumma, Director of Personnel, Raytheon Manufacturing Company 
Thomas A. Pappas, President, C. Pappas Company, Inc. 
Leonard T. Peters, Vice President, Peters Employment Service, Inc. 
Sidney R. Rabb, Chairman of the Board, Stop and Shop, Inc. 
Paul T. Rothwell, Chairman, Bay State Milling Company 

Arthur Seserman, Executive Vice President, Boston Branch National Metal 

Trades Association 
F. Frank Vorenberg, President, Gilchrist Company 

Leslie E. Woods, Labor Relations Advisor and Consultant, Raytheon Company 

Cape Cod 

Dr. Lewis Paul Todd, Chairman, Editor, "Social Education" 
Harold L. Baker, Chief of Police, Falmouth 

Harvard H. Broadbent, Superintendent of Schools, Town of Barnstable 
Moncrieff M. Cochran, Guidance Director, Nauset Regional High School, Orleans 
Norman H. Cook, Executive Secretary, Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce 
Manuel Corey, Jr., Falmouth 

Charles A. Coyle, Executive Secretary, Massachusetts Hotel Association 
Rt. Rev. Leonard J. Daley, Pastor, St. Francis Xavier Church, Hyannis 
Miss Eugenia Fortes, Hyannis 

Mrs. Roma M. Freeman, Physical Education & Science Teacher, Barnstable 

Junior High School 
Mrs. Walter H. Garrison, Hyannis 
Joseph Gomes, Osterville 
Jack Graiver, Falmouth 

Arthur G. Harwood, Executive Director, Falmouth Housing Authority 
Malcolm R. Hobbs, Editor and Publisher, "The Cape Codder," Orleans 



32 



John T. Hough, Editor, Fahnouth "Enterprise" 
Mrs. John T, Hough, Falmouth 

Joseph Indio, Editor and Publisher, "Nantucket Town Crier" 
Allen F. Jones, Contractor, Barnstable 

James H. Kennedy, Employment Office Manager, Mass. Division of Employment 

Security, Plymouth 
John C. Linehan, Principal, Barnstable Junior High School, Hyannis 
Thomas F. McKeon, Manager, McLellan Stores Corjx)raition, Hyannis 
Harry S. Merson, Superintendent of Schools, Falmouth 
Mrs. Harry S. Merson, Falmouth 

Ben Morton, Secretary, Chamber of Commerce, Martha's Vineyard 
Norman Nunes, Supervisor, Hood Milk Company, Hyannis 
Mrs. Lillian Olsen, Treasurer, Hyannis Cooperative Bank 

John Pena, Contractor, Member, State Board of Agriculture, West Falmouth 

Mrs. John Pena, Special Policewoman for Falmouth Police Department 

Thomas Roderick, Teen-Age group coordinator, Hyannis 

Rev. Carl Fearing Schultz, D.D., The Federated Church of Hyannis 

Miss Mary G. Shea, Corresj>ondent, "Dennis- Yarmouth Register" 

Frank Simmons, Sr., Guest House owner, Falmouth 

Warren Sperl, Assistant Treasurer, Cape & Vineyard Electric Company 
Frederick M. Sylvia, Refrigerator Service, East Falmouth 
Richard F. Tobin, Public Relations 
Mrs. Lewis Paul Todd, Truro 

Harold H. Williams, Real Estaite & Insurance, West Yarmouth 
Mrs. Minna Witt, Proprietor, Admiral Hotel, Hyannis 

New Bedford 

Fred W. Steele, Chairman, Legislative Agent and Counsel for the Massachusetts 

Textile Industry 
Mrs. Valentina N. Almeida, Principal Clerk, City Auditor's Office 
Joseph Baldwin, Employment Manager, Division of Employment Security, New 

Bedford 

Samuel Barnet, Special Justice, Third District Court of Bristol County 
Henry A. Bartkiewicz, Attorney at Law 

James M. Buckley, Director of Adult Education, New Bedford School Department 
W. Kenneth Burke, President Cachalot Council, Boy Scouts, New Bedford 
George E. Carignan, International Representative, Textile Workers' Union of 

America, AFL-CIO 
Joaquim A. Custodio, Lancashire Corporation, New Bedford 

Duncan A. Dottin, Social Worker, Division of Child Guardianship, New Bedford 

Rev. Edmund G. Francis, SS.CC, Pastor, St. Mary's Church, Fairhaven 

Rev. Edward A. Hailes, Union Baptist Church, New Bedford 

Mrs. William Holmes, Jr., President, Council of Women's Organizations of 

Greater New Bedford 
Harold Hurwitz, Attorney at Law 

Hyman Krivoff, President & Treasurer, Dartmouth Finishing Corporation 

Miss Ruth B. McFadden, Retired Superintendent of Schools, New Bedford 

George F. McGovem, Works Manager, Revere Copper and Brass, Inc. 

Joao R. Rocha, Publisher & Editor, "Portuguese Daily News," New Bedford 

Marshall M. Sawyer, Jr., Mattapoisett 

Fermino J. Spencer, New Bedford School Department 

Mrs. Dorothy B. Stahre, Principal, Charles S. Ashley School, New Bedford 
Joseph A. Sylvia, Jr., Register of Deeds, New Bedford 
The Hon. August C. Taveira 

Alfred R. Thackeray, Executive Secretary, New Bedford Board of Commerce 
Mrs. Xenophon Thomas, New Bedford 

Philip F. Tripp, Executive Director, New Bedford Housing Authority 



33 



William J. Winsper, Assistant Director, Guidance Department, New Bedford High 
Schools 

Donald Zeman, Attorney at Law, Bronspiegel and Zeman 

Mrs. Anthony S. Zielinski, Women's Republican Club of New Bedford Executive 
Board 

Rabbi Bernard H. Ziskind, Tifereth Israel Synagogue 

North Shore 

Henry Kozlowski, Chairman, Treasurer, Jackson & Phillips, Inc. 

Anthony Athanas, President, Hawthorne Restaurants, Lynn-Swarapscott 

Samuel P. Backman, Realtor, Chairman, Industrial Commission of Lynn 

Mrs. Mary Finn Berlyn, Supervisor, Adult Civic Education, Lynn Public Schools 

Louis L. Brin, Chairman, North Shore Fair Housing Practices Committee 

S. Matthew Carrington, Sr., Vice President, Lynn Council of Churches 

Abraham E. Caswell, Caswell Shoes, Inc., Lynn 

Thomas D. Chatfield, President, Essex Trust Company 

Thomas J, Curtin, Director of Civic Education, Massachusetts Department of 
Education 

Mrs. Solomon M. Feldman, Jewish Federation of Greater Lynn 
Peter Gamage, Publisher, "Lynn Item" 

Abraham Glovsky, Senior Partner, Glovsky & Glovsky , 
Mrs. Charles F. Haywood, Chief Librarian, Lynn Public Library 
Dr. Francis L. Keane, School Adjustment Counselor, Lynn Public Schools 
John M. Lilly, General Secretary, L)Tin YMCA 
Herbert D. Marsh, President, Security Trust Company, Lynn 
Lawrence G. McGinn, Superintendent of Schools, Lynn School Department 
Mrs. Marcia L. Memmott, Director, Women's Division, Mass. Department of 
Commerce 

Mrs. William H. Nesbit, Newspaper Reference Librarian, "Lynn Daily Evening 
Item" 

Theodore Regnante, Chairman, Board of Trustees of Lynn Public Library 
Rev. Edgar D. Romig, Rector, St. Stephen's Episcopal Church Lynn, President, 

Greater Lynn Council of Churches 
Armand J. St. Laurent, Funeral Director 
Dr. Steven S. Schwarzschild, Rabbi, Temple Beth El, Lynn 
Rt. Rev. Cornelius T. H. Sherlock, Pastor, St. Mary's Parish, Lynn 
Dr. William D. Washington, Lynn 

William A. Welch, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Mass. Association of School 
Superintendents 

Springfield 

Charles V. Ryan, Chairman, Attorney at Law 

Mrs. Richard B. Anderson, Public Affairs Committee, Springfield Community 
Council 

Archie Burack, Treasurer, Industrial Buildings Corporation 

Miss Clarace E. Gait, Head Psychiatric Social Worker, Child Guidance Clinic 
of Springfield 

George C. Gordon, Gordon and Gibbs Real Estate, Springfield 

Mrs. Richard J. Grifl&n, Jr., President, Springfield Council of Civic Organizations 
Miss Alice L. Halligan, Executive Secretary, Springfield Adult Education Council 
Miss Olive K. Horrigan, Director of Adult Education, Springfield School 

Department 
Raymond T. King, Attorney at Law 



34 



A. Benjamin Mapp, Executive Director, Urban League of Springfield 
Bernard H. McMahon, President, Springfield Five Cents Savings Bank 
Roger L. Putnam, Chairman, Package Machinery Company, East Longmeadow 
Mrs. Roger L. Putnam, President, Catholic Scholarships for Negroes, Inc., 
Springfield 

Frederick B. Robinson, Director, Museum of Fine Arts, Springfield 
James J. Shea, President, Milton-Bradley Company, Springfield 
Dr. Hans B. C. Spiegel, Director, Community Tensions Center, Springfield 
College 

Charles ViVenzio, Local 202, AFL-CIO 
Mrs. Malcolm C. Webber 

Rev. D, Edward Wells, Mt, Calvary Baptist Church, Springfield 

Worcester 

Andrew B. Holmstrom, Chairman, Consultant to Norton Company 
Rev. Michael P. Bafaro, Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester 
Mrs. Mary L. Boyd, Executive Board, NAACP 

Lyscom A. Bruce, Executive Secretary, Community Chest and Council of 
Greater Worcester 

Rev. Hubert C. Callaghan, S.J., Director, Institute of Industrial Relations, College 
of Holy Cross 

Miss S. Virginia Carrier, Executive Director, Worcester YWCA 
Dr. Leo T. Doherty, Superintendent of Schools, Worcester 

Donald S. Donnelly, Chief Employment Service Supervisor, Division of Employ- 
ment Security 
Clayton T. Drown, Holden 
Mrs. Linwood M. Erskine, President, YWCA 

Mrs. Daniel Farber, Member, Advisory Committee, Interracial Council of 
Worcester 

The Hon. Joseph Goldberg, Chairman, Worcester Area Committee, Anti- 
Defamation League of B'nai B'rith 

Rev. Ralph L. Holland, Th.D., Executive Secretary, Greater Worcester Area 
Council of Churches 

Dr. Howard B. JefEerson, President, Clark University, Worcester 

Mrs. Aura M. Kelliher, Principal Social Work Supervisor, Aid to Dependent 
Children Division, Board of Public Welfare 

Rabbi Joseph Klein, Temple Emanuel, W^orcester 

John S. Laws, Principal, Dix Street School, Worcester 

Miss Anna M. Mays, Life member. New England Regional Conference, NAACP 
Philip M. Morgan, President, Morgan Construction Company 
Mrs. Stanley W. Norwood, Bancroft School, Worcester 

Walter A. Olson, Executive Director, Family Service Organization of Worcester 
Harry W. Oswell, Honorary Vice President, New England Regional NAACP 
Edson D. Phelps, Second Vice President, State Mutual of America 
Mrs. Thomas L. Porter, First Vice President, Massachusetts State Federation of 
Women's Clubs 

Mrs. Dorothy L. Salter, President, Salter Secretarial School, Worcester 
Luther C. Small, Executive Director, Worcester Housing Authority 
Mrs. George E. Spence, Scholarship Chairman, Women's Service Club, YWCA 
Roy H. Stevens, Sub-District Director, United Steelworkers of America 
Joseph Weinreb, M.D., Director, Worcester Youth Guidance Center 



35 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 
November 10, 1946 to December 31, 1961 

Complaints: 

Initiated and received 2149 

Closed after formal hearing 5 

Closed after investigation and conference 1186 

Closed for lack of probable cause 722 

Closed for lack of jurisdiction 76 

Withdrawn 101 

Pending investigation and conference 59 

Noticed for formal hearing 

Investigations Without Complaint: 

Initiated by the Commission 864 

Closed after investigation and conference 658 

Closed for lack of probable cause 184 

Transferred to complaint 8 

Pending investigation and conference 14 

Regulating and Supervising Age Amendment: 

Initiated by the Commission 893 

Closed after investigation and conference 847 

Closed for lack of probable cause 33 

Pending investigation and conference 13 

TOTAL 3906 

Nature of Complaints and Investigations: 

Based upon alleged color discrimination 1526 

Based upon alleged religious discrimination 372 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of race 58 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of national origin 404 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of ancestry 50 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of age 1496 

Type of Complaints and Investigations: 

Against employers 2934 

Against employment agencies 143 

Against Labor unions 37 

Others 66 

Public Accommodations 327 

Newspaper Advertising 145 

Public Housing 15 

Publicly Assisted Housing 28 

Private Housing 191 

Fair Educational Practices 20 



36 



CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES 
ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMISSION 

The FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE LAW was enacted as Chapter 15 IB of 
the General Laws by Chapter 368 of the Acts of 1946; amended by Chapter 424 
of the Acts of 1947 relative to inquiries into whether an applicant for employment 
or union membership is a veteran or a citizen; further amended by Chapter 411 of 
the Acts of 1948 relative to civil service coverage of certain commission employees; 
further amended by Chapter 479 of the Acts of 1950 changing the name of the Fair 
Employment Practice Commission to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimi- 
nation and further defining its powers and duties; further amended by Chapter 697 
of the Acts of 1950 relative to employment discrimination because of age; further 
amended by Chapter 588 of the Acts of 1951 relative to compensation of members of 
the Commission; further amended by Chapter 274 of the Acts of 1955 relative to 
discrimination by bonding companies. 

The FAIR EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES LAW was enacted by Chapter 151C of 
the General Laws by Chapter 726 of the Acts of 1949; amended by Chapter 334 of 
the Acts of 1956 giving jurisdiction over the law to the Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination. 

Discrimination in PUBLIC HOUSING, made illegal by Chapter 121, Section 26FF 
of the General Laws, was further defined to include segregation, and jurisdiction 
over complaints was given to the MCAD by Chapter 479 of the Acts of 1950. 

The PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAW (Chapter 272, Section 92A and Section 
98 of the General Laws) was placed under the jurisdiction of the MCAD by Chapter 
479 of the Acts of 1950; amended by Chapter 437 of the Acts of 1953 further defining 
a place of public accommodation. 

The PUBLICLY ASSISTED HOUSING LAW was enacted as an amendment to the 
fair employment practice law by Chapter 426 of the Acts of 1957. 

The PRIVATE HOUSING LAW was enacted as an amendment to the fair employ- 
ment practice law by Chapter 239 of the Acts of 1959; further amended by Chapter 
163 of the Acts of 1960 forbidding discrimination in the granting of mortgage loans. 

The PRIVATE HOUSING section of the law was amended by Chapter 128 of 
the Acts of 1961 to include the sale or negotiation to sell housing accommodations as 
well as giving the Commission jurisdiction over licensed real estate brokers. 

The INJUNCTIVE RELIEF LAW was enacted as an amendment to the fair 
practices statute by Chapter 570 of the Acts of 1961. 



Public Document No. 168 

M4I 



(Slammmmmiti} of liasHarljuaftta 

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 

ANNUAL REPORT 

of the 
Massachusetts : Commission 

* 

Against Discrimination 

January 1, 1962 to December 31, 1962 




■6-63 



Mildred H. Mahoney, Chuiimaji 
Chester N. Gibbs, Commissioner 
Ben G. Shapiro, Commissioner 
Walter H. Nolan, Executive Secretary 

41 Tremont Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



CATION OP THIS DOCUMENT APPROVED BY ALFRED C. HOLLAND, StATE PURCHASING AgeNT 
4M-6-63-93S717 Estimated Cost Per Copy: $.116 



STMir ^' ■ ■nFMASSACHBSmS 

CONTENTS 

Page 

INTRODUCTION .SWE HOUSE, BOSIOM . 3 
SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTIVITIES . . . 7 . 3 
OPERATION OF LAW 4 

COMPLAINT HISTORIES 5 

Employment 5 

Public Accommodations 6 

Private Housing 6 

NEW LEGISLATION 7 

HOUSING 7 

Supreme Court Decision on Constitutionality ...... 7 

Fair Housing Formal Hearing 17 

Public Housing Survey Statistics 19 

FAIR EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES 25 

EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS 28 

Negro Apprentice Survey 26 

Council Activities 27 

List of Council Members 31 

STATISTICAL SUxMMARY 37 

A LIST OF CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES 38 



A 

SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT 
OF THE MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION 
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION 

INTRODUCTION 

The dictionary defines discrimination as "an unfair or injurious distinction." 

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination has worked for 17 years in 
this field of "unfair and injurious distinction" among the citizens of the Common- 
wealth. In this period, we have maintained a position that ours is a job of human 
relations, a people to people project, a project involving public education and law 
enforcement. 

While we believe strongly in the method of informal conference which the law 
provides for initially, we have not hesitated when the occasion demanded to proceed 
to the second stage of holding a public hearing and subsequently issuing orders to be 
enforced by the Superior Court. 

Prejudice is an intangible — its results, howe^er, in producing discrimination are 
plain to see. The Commission sees nevertheless this year, as in previous years, a 
steady, quiet trend away from "injurious distinctions." The changes are not dramatic 
nor are they widely heralded — the significant point is that they are there. 

In presenting our annual report, we list statistics of these changes, but to us, each 
figure represents a human being to whom we have talked and with whom we have 
worked. We see how far we have come in a year^ but we see, also, how far, with 
your help, we must go. 

SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTIVITIES 

The seventeenth annual report includes the period from January 1, 1962 to De- 
cember 31, 1962. 

The Commission investigated 318 matters involving discrimination based on race, 
color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry in the areas of fair employment, 
fair housing, equal treatment in places of public accommodations, and fair educa- 
tional practices. 

Staff members of the Commission interviewed 637 employers throughout the Com- 
monweath. The purpose of these interviews was to acquaint the employers with the 
provisions of the civil rights statutes and the interpretations and rulings of the Com- 
mission; to review employment application forms and hiring policies and to obtain 
compliance with that section of the fair practices law which requires the display of 
an official notice in a conspicuous place on the premises. 

Of the 637 employers interviewed 160 were found to be using employment appli- 
j cation forms which were in violation of the fair employment practice provision of 
i the statute. Thirty-two employers inquired into the national origin of the applicant; 
I two employers recorded the race; one recorded the color and one the religious creed 
j of the applicant. The remaining employers, 124 in number, made pre-employment 
I inquiries into the age of the applicant. All violations were eliminated. 
I The advertising material used by hotels, motels and guest houses are screened each 
( year during the resort season for possible violations of the Public Accommodations 
j statute. This year the advertising material from 1103 places of public acccommoda- 
ji lions was reviewed. No violations of the law were found. 

i A spot check of fifty motels was made to determine compliance with the regulation 

! requiring display of the notice of the provisions of the public accommodations 
statute. All of the motels were displaying the notice. 
A survey was made of the tenant selection policy of twenty-seven Public Housing 



4 



V 



Authorities to ascertain conformance with the public housing amendment to the f 
practices statute. 

The survey included the number and names of the completed developments within 
each Authority's control and management; the number of incompleted developments; 
the niunber of contemplated developments; an examination of all forms and records 
maintained on applicants and tenants; the method and procedure used for tenant 
selection, and the number of non-white tenants. 

The non-white population of the housing developments is recorded in the Public 
Housing section of this report. 

Commission staff members surveyed seventy-one private housing developments, each 
development consisting of ten or more single houses contiguously built, in forty-one 
communities. 

The Commission conducted a sur\'ey in the Boston area to obtain among other 
things the number of Negroes presently indentured as apprentices in those trades 
having formal apprenticeship training programs. 

For the purposes of the survey 138 unions Avere contacted. 

In addition to those who filed complaints 816 persons visited the office of the Com- 
mission to make inquiries concerning their rights and obligations under the provisions 
of the civil rights statutes. 

The Commission members and staff conducted conferences and spoke before 135 
business, civic and social organizations. 

In cooperation with the Board of Registration of Real Estate Brokers and Sales- 
men, 30,000 copies of the public accommodations poster are being distributed. By 
this distribution all real estate brokers and salesmen will be placed on notice that 
their services must be made available to all people regardless of religion, color or race. 

A study, incomplete at this time, is being made of the admission policies and prac- 
tices of the 175 independent (private) secondary schools. To date, members of the 
staff have made personal visits to ninety-one of the schools as part of the study. 

In the fall the Advisory Council on Housing was fonned. 



OPERATION OF THE LAW 

L Enforcing the Law 

When a complaint is brought by an individual or his attorney, it is assigned to a 
commissioner who, with the assistance of the staff, conducts an investigation to deter- 
mine whether probable cause exists for crediting the statements appearing in the 
complaint. If probable cause is found to exist, the investigating commissioner en- 
deavors to eliminate the unlawful practice complained of by conference, conciliation 
and persuasion, that is, through frank discussion with the parties concerned. If 
necessary, the Commission has the power to subpoena. If the matter cannot be set- 
tled in the conference period it is referred to the other two commissioners for a 
hearing which is public. After such a hearing the Commission may issue orders 
which may be carried out by the Superior Court, 

2. Investigations 

An investigation deals with a situation which does not begin with a formal com- 
plaint from an individual, but it must relate to instances where trouble is manifest 
and can be traced to the factors of race, religious creed, national origin, age or ances- 
try and so is of concern to the Commission and community. The Commission recog- 
nizes what it considers to be a danger signal and tries to straighten out the matter 
in a cooperative manner. The information which triggers the investigation may come 
from a reputable source or agency or may be an incident involving an organization 
exempted from the provisions of the statutes. Under such circumstances the Com- 
mission invites people to a conference in an attempt to resolve the situation. 

3. Education 

The educational program attempts through Council activities, distribution of the 
Unit of Study, "Discrimination — Danger to Democracy," conferences, speeches, sur- 



5 



\eys and the distribution of printed material to acquaint the general community 
with the work of the Commission to the end that public understanding, sympathy 
and support may be stimulated and the services given by the Commission may be 
made clear. 

COMPLAINT HISTORIES 

Employment 

1. On February 21, 1962 a complaint was filed with the Commission in which an 
electronics company located in western Massachusetts was charged with unlawful 
discrimination in employment by refusing to employ a woman allegedly because of 
her color. 

The complainant declared that she presented herself to the employment office of 
the company in answer to an advertisement which had made known that there were 
oj^enings for experienced coil winders, assemblers and bench workers. 

Complainant informed the employment office interviewer that she had applied 
previously and had an employment application on file with the company. When 
lier original application form could not be foinid complainant was asked to complete 
another and to wait for an interview. 

Complainant related that the personnel manager interviewed her, asked her age 
and previous experience and after making certain notations informed her that he 
would call her. 

Not having heard from the company and having knowledge that the company had 
no colored employees, the complainant filed her charges. 

Investigation revealed that the company employed seventy-five people one of whom 
was colored. 

In addition it was shown that three white women were hired within two days sub- 
sequent to complainant's application. A comparison of qualifications showed com- 
plainant to be as well qualified by training and experience as the three women who 
were hired. 

Probable cause was found and the complainant was given the next vacancy as a 
means of conciliating the matter. (Complaint No. XVII-16-C) 

2. On September 18, 19G2, a woman, age 51, was informed by an office manager 
that she would not be considered for an advertised opening for a clerk typist because 
the employer hired girls in their twenties only. 

On September 10, 1962, the complainant had telephoned (he respondent in answer 
to an advertisement and had been asked her age as well as prior experience. When 
she had given her age it was alleged that she was told that the company did not want 
anyone her age. 

Complainant declared that on September 18, 1962 she saw the same help wanted 
advertisement. Complainant reminded the office manager of her telephone applica- 
tion for the job the week previous during which the qualification of age had been 
raised. 

Complainant stated that she informed the office manager of her experience operat- 
ing bookkeeping machines in addition to her typing skills It is alleged that she was 
told that the employer wanted young girls because everyone in the company was 
young. A personal interview was requested by the complainant and was refused. 

A verified complaint was filed charging unlawful discrimination because of age. 

On September 19, 1962 the investigation was initiated. 

It was found that there were twenty-six employees none of whom were over forty- 
five years of age. 

Respondent's employment application form contained pre-employment inquiries 
into age. 

Arrangements were made for the complainant to be interviewed by respondent. 

An informal conference was held on the matter by the Investigating Commissioner 
with the parties at interest being present. The entire situation was thoroughly dis- 
cussed resulting in the complainant being given the opportunity to fill the job. 
(Complaint No. AXII 6-A) 



6 



Public Accommodations 

On June 29, 1962 an affidavit was submitted to the Commission by the mother of 
a young girl alleging a violation of the public accommodations statute, Chapter 272, 
Section 98 of the General Laws. 

In her allegations the mother declared that her daughter, age twelve, was taken 
by a white family to a beach in the Springfield area. 

The admission fee was paid and rhe young colored girl and her friends went into 
the water for a swim. 

A short time after entering the water a person, described in the affidavit as a life 
guard, called the youngster out of the water and informed her that the owner of 
the resort area did not want any colored people on the beach. It is alleged that 
he told the young colored girl that she could remain with her friends on this occa- 
sion but asked that she not return. 

On the basis of the sworn statement of the mother the Commission initiated a 
complaint on its own. 

The allegations were investigated and the facts of the matter thoroughly developed. 

The owner of the beach resort denied the allegations. 

The individual described in the affidavit as a life-guard was sixteen years old and 
employed part-time. He admitted that he did make the statements attributed to him. 

The owner apologized to the mother and daughter and invited them to return to 
the beach as frequently as they chose to do so. 

A written statement of admission policy to conform wiih the provisions of the 
statute was made part of the record of this complaint. 

The child and her parents have returned to the beach and have been accorded 
the same treatment as every one else. (Complaint No. PXTI-12-C) 

Private Housing 

On May 3, 1962 a complaint was filed charging a realty corporation with refusing 
to rent an apartment because of the color of the complainant. 

According to the complaint on April 23, 1962 the complainant telephoned re- 
spondent to inquire of vacant apartments. He was given the address of an apart- 
ment in Cambridge and advised to look it over and see if it was to his liking. 

Early the following day complainant's wife visited the vacant apartment and found 
it to be suitable. 

On April 25, 1962 complainant telephoned respondent, stated that the apartment 
was suitable provided there was a little renovation done in the bath and kitchen. 
Complainant was instructed to report to respondent's office on April 27, 1962 to fill 
out the necessary forms and to leave a deposit. 

On the appointed day at approximately 4:00 P.M. after having called to make 
sure the apartment was available, complainant appeared at respondent's office. 

Complainant was assured that his request for renovations was reasonable. He 
completed a tenant application form and obtained a receipt for fifty-five dollars, the 
equivalent of one-half of the monthly rental. Before leaving respondent's office the 
head of the realty corporation came in and discussed with complainant the expense 
involved in renovating the apartment. He further discussed the date on which com- 
plainant could move into the apartment. 

On May 1, 1962 complainant received the return of his deposit accompanied by a 
letter advising him that the apartment could not be rented to him. 

On May 2, 1962 the wife of a friend of complainant telephoned respondent and 
was told that the apartment was available. This was at 12:30 P.M. 

At approximately 2:40 P.M. complainant, in front of witnesses, telephoned re- 
spondent only to be told that a present tenant of one of respondent's other prop- 
erties was going to rent the apartment in question. 

Later that day, complainant's friend, a white person, was rented the apartment by 
respondent. 

The investigation substantiated the allegations contained in the complaint. 
An informal conference was held with the respondent at which he was told that 
probable cause had been found in the matter. 



/ 

He was apprised of the fact that the person to whom he had agreed to rent the 
apartment was a "tester" who did not want the apartment. 

Arrangements were made to have a release signed by complainant's friend who had 
been successful in obtaining the apartment. 

Complainant signed a lease, paid the first month's rent and took occupancy of the 
apartment on May 17, 1962. (Complaint No. PrH-lV-19-C) 

NEW LEGISLATION 

When the age amendment was passed in 1950 specifying that a qualified person 
could not be denied employment because he was between the ages of forty-five and 
sixty-five, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, when acting as an employer, was 
exempted. 

The law quoted below now removes that exemption and now includes "the com- 
monwealth and all political subdivisions, boards, departments and commissions 
thereof." 

Chap. 627 An Act Relative To The Definition Of Employer In The Law Rela- 
tive To Unlawful Discrimination. 
A Improved July 5, 7962 

Be it enacted, etc., as follows: 

"Section 1 of chapter 151B of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking out 
subsection 5, as amended by section 1 of chapter 697 of the acts of 1950, and inserting 
in place thereof the following subsection: — 

5. The term 'employer' does not include a club exclusively social, or a fraternal, 
charitable, educational or religious association or corporation, if such club, associa- 
tion or corporation is not organized for pri\ate profit, nor does it include any em- 
ployer with fewer than six persons in his employ, but shall include the commonwealth 
and all political subdivisions, boards, departments and commissions thereof." 



HOUSING 

Supreme Court Decision On Constitutionality 

In the last Annual Report there was published a case history which included the 
Findings Of Fact, Conclusions Of Law and Final Order issued by the Commission as 
the result of a public hearing held on a complaint involving a violation of the fair 
housing practices statute. 

A test of the constitutionality of the law was made by the respondents in the mat- 
ter. (Fowler v. Colangelo, Complaint No. PrHII-45-C) 

At the time of the printing of the 1961 Annual Report the decision of the Massa- 
chusetts Supreme Judicial Court had not been handed down. It was not until May 
16, 1962 that the Court, in a historic decision, the first such decision in the nation, 
held that the Massachusetts fair housing law of 1959 was constitutional. 

The decision of the Supreme Judicial Court follows: 

MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 

MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION & another 

vs. 

A. J. COLANGELO & another 

WILKINS, C. J. The petitioner commission, established pursuant to G.L. c. 6, section 
56 (as amended through St. 1951, C. 588), brings this petition to enforce an order 
the commission entered against the respondents, Colangelo and Nahigian, respectively 



8 



the owner and rental agent of a new 120-unit apartment building^ in Waltham known 
as Glenmeadow Apartments. G.L. C. 151B, section 6, as amended through St. 1957, 
c. 426, section 5. The premises are privately financed, with no governmental guaranty, 
insurance, or other public assistance. The case is reported without decision by a 
judge of the Superior Court for our determination upon the pleadings, a statement 
of agreed facts, and a transcript of the hearing before the commission. G.L. (Ter. 
Ed.) c. 214, section 31. 

Maurice Fowler, the complainant in proceedings before the commission under G.L. 
C. 151B, Section 5 (as amended through St. 1957, c. 426, section 4; see now St. 1961, 
c. 570), has been allowed to intervene as a party petitioner. He is a Negro employed 
as a contract negotiator for the Electronics System Center of the United States Air 
Force located at Waltham, and is seeking to rent one of the apartments at the ad- 
vertised rental of $145 a month. On July 20, 1960, he filed a written complaint with 
the Commission charging the respondents with unlawful discriminatory practices. 
The commission conducted a preliminary investigation, followed by an unsuccessful 
attempt at conference, conciliation and persuasion. After a formal hearing under 
section 5 the commission found that the respondents had engaged in unlawful dis- 
criminatory practices as defined in section 4, as amended, in refusing to rent an 
apartment to Fowler because of his color. Other findings were that he had obtained 
comparable accommodations in Cambridge at 35175 a month. The commission also 
entered an order which, among other things, directed the respondents to make an 
apartment available to Fowler, to compensate him for the damages suffered because of 
the discrimination, and to cease discrimination in renting apartments. 

The statutory provisions pertinent to the case at bar are G.L. c. 151B, section 4, in- 
serted by St. 1946, c. 368, section 4 (as amended through St. 1959, c. 239, section 
2)^: "It shall be an unlawful practice: . . . (subsection) 6. For the owner, lessee, sub- 
lessee, assignee or managing agent of publicly assisted or multiple dwelling or con- 
tiguously located housing accommodations or other person having the right of owner- 
ship or possession or right to rent or lease such accommodations: — (a) to refuse to 
rent or lease or otherwise to deny to or withhold from any person or group of persons 
such accommodations because of the race, creed, color or national origin of such per- 
son or persons: (b) to discriminate against any person because of his race, creed, color 
or national origin in the terms, conditions or privileges of such accommodations or in 
the furnishing of facilities or services in connection therewith ..." 

In c. 151B, section 1, cl. 11, inserted by St. 1957, c. 426, section 1, we read the defini- 
tion, "The term 'multiple dwelling' means a dwelling which is usually occupied for 
permanent residence purposes and which is either rented, leased, let or hired out, to 
be occupied as the residence or home of three or more families living independently 
of each other ..." 

The principal reliance of each respondent is upon constitutional objections to these 
statutory provisions. Before trying to analyze those objections certain general prin- 
ciples should be clearly noted. "It is only when a legislative finding cannot be sup- 
ported upon any rational basis of fact that reasonably can be conceived to sustain it 
that a court is empowered to strike it down ... If the question is fairly debatable, 
courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of the Legislature." Druzik v. Board 
of Health of Haverhill, 324 Mass. 129, 138-139, and cases cited. Wright v. "Peabody, 
331 Mass. 161, 164. Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 342 Mass. ] ^. Only one 
whose rights are impaired by a statute can raise the question of its constitutionality, 
and he can object to the statute only as applied to him. Commonwealth v. Brown, 
302 Mass. 523, 526, app. dism. 308 U. S. 504. Kaplan v. Bowker, 333 Mass. 455, 459- 
461 Silverman v. Board of Registration in Optometry, Mass. , Yazoo & Miss. 



iThe findings of the commission give the number of units as 110. The figure appears as 120 in 

the answer of Colangelo filed with the commission and in all the briefs. 
SLater amended by St. 1960, c. 163, section 2, and St. 1961, c. 128. 
^Mass. Adv. Sh. (1961), 1091, 1093. 
'Mass. Adv. Sh. (1962), 537, 542. 



9 



Valley R.R. v. Jackson Vinegar Co. 226 U. S. 217. Corieb v. Fox, 274 U. S. 603, 606. 
United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 20-24. See JVroadhurst'vTTall River, 278 Mass. 
167, 170. The burden of overcoming the presmnption of constitutionality is not sus- 
tained by generalities whether of law or fact. Specific allegations are required. Merit 
Oil Co. V. Director of the Div. on the Necessaries of Life. 319 Mass. 301, 305. Com- 
monwealth v. Chamberlain, supra^ 

In attacking the statutory provision quoted above prohibiting discrimination because 
of "race, creed, color or national origin" in renting or leasing accommodations in 
multiple dwellings as there defined, the respondent Colangelo relies upon the due 
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
and arts. 1 and 10 of the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution of this Common- 
wealth. He contends that there has been an invasion of his right of "acquiring, pos- 
sessing, and protecting property," and of his right of liberty of contract, and that 
there has been an appropriation of his property without compensation. The respon- 
dent Nahigian claims infringements on his freedom to contract with persons he chooses, 
on his "freedom of association," and on his "freedom from coercion," basing his claims 
upon art. 1 of the Declaration of Rights and on Part II, c. 1, section 1, art. 4, of the 
Constitution of this Commonwealth. He also cites arts. 10 and 12 of the Declaration 
of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

1. Several contentions may be briefly disposed of. A suggestion of the respondent 
Colangelo is that there has been a taking of his property without compensation in 
violation of art. 10 of the Declaration of Rights. No attempt has been made ta 
allege or prove specific damage or reduction in property value. All that this re- 
spondent says is that the "freedom of the owner to exercise his own judgment in the 
sale or rental of his property is the most important attribute of ownership," and that 
to the extent that St. 1959, c. 239, takes that right there has been a confiscation of 
an interest in property by the State. Clearly there has been no taking of property in 
a constitutional sense. Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush, 53, 84-88. Locatelli v, Med- 

ford, 287 Mass. 560, cert. den. 294 U.S. 727. Opinion of the Justices, 333 Mass. 773, 

__ 

The respondent Nahigian is in no position to contend that there has been an in- 
fringement of his freedom of association. Whatever may be said of the right of a 
home owner freely to choose his neighbors or to rent only to persons of his own 
choice, Nahigian is merely the rental agent of a 120-unit apartment house. He is not 
being compelled to live near anyone by the commission's order, and he lacks standing 
to raise the rights of others. In answer to his argument that there has been an inter- 
ference with his right to freedom from coercion, we need only to indicate that in 
1 running his realty business, he is not exempt from State regulation. See, for example, 
■ G.L. c. 112, sections 87PP-87DDD (inserted by St. 1957, c. 726, section 2), as amended. 
> See also Seaman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Holliston, 340 Mass. 488, 489; Ranke v. 
Corporation & Sec. Comm., 317 Mich. 304, 310; Roman v. Lobe, 243 N.Y. 41, 54-57; 
Payne v. Volkman, 183 Wis. 412, 419. Two cases relied upon are of no material 
bearing. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, dealing with the free exercise of 
one's religion, and West Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, concerning 
State compelled affirmations of belief, do not give the respondent an absolute consti- 
tutional right to implement his beliefs or prejudices by any conduct he chooses. 

2. The major argument of the respondent Colangelo, as it appears to us, is that 
there has been an invasion of his rights in property and of his right of liberty to 
contract in violation of Part II, c. 1, section 1, art. 4, of the Constitution of this 
Commonwealth. This provision confers upon the General Court "full power and 
authority ... to make, ordain, and establish, all manner of wholesome and reason- 



U^age 1093. 



able . . . laws, statutes ... so as the same be not repugnant or contrary to the con- 
stitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of this Commonwealth, 
and for the government and ordering thereof . . . ." Article 1 of the Declaration 
of Rights defines as one of the "natural, essential, and unalienable rights . . . that 
of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property." 

(a) The respondents have shown nothing to rebut the presumption of valid statu- 
tory objectives. The respondent Colangelo complains that there are no express legis- 
lative findings as to the relationship, if any, of the amendment inserted by St. 1959, 
c. 239, to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. But there need be no such 
express findings. As was said in Merit Oil Co. v. Director of the Div. on the Neces- 
saries of Life, 319 Mass. 301, 304-305, "The Legislature possesses a large measure of 
discretion to determine what the public interests require and what means should be 
taken to protect those interests. The field for the legitimate exercise of the police 
power is coextensive with the changing needs of society. The record does not nega- 
tive the existence of any of the possible findings . . ." 

We reject the contention that the "only discernible purpose of the stattUe is to make 
people live together in a certain pattern of color." There are a number of possible 
findings which, in enacting the statute, the Legislature could have made in the 
legitimate exercise of the police power within the rule laid down in the Merit Oil Co. 
case. The respondent Colangelo concedes that the relationship to the public health 
and safety of statutes prohibiting discrimination because of race or color in employ- 
ment and in places of public accommodation is not so remote as to be irrational 
(Bryant v. Rich's Grill, 216 Mass. 344; Opinion of the Justices, 247 Mass. 589, 595); and 
that such "discrimination because of race or color in the rental of publicly assisted 
housing accommodations has a real, though somewhat tenuous, relation to action by 
the State." As to possible objectives, there is no constitutional distinction between 
legislating in these areas and legislating in the field of multiple-dwelling housing. 
This is apart from questions of constitutionality raised in implementing these objec- 
tives because of the degree of interference with private property rights. These are dis- 
cussed below. 

We enumerate certain possible findings which the Legislature could have made to 
support valid objectives. These are not necessarily a complete list. (1) Discrimina- 
tion in multiple-dw^elling and contiguously located housing might tend to restrict 
Negroes to a relatively small area and perhaps to encourage slum conditions through 
density of population. See Allydonn Realty Corp. v. Holyoke Housing Authy., 304 
Mass. 288, 293-294; Papadinis v. Somerville, 331 Mass. 627, 631; Opinion of the 
Justices, 334 Mass. 760, 763. (2) Housing discrimination could impede the relocation 
of families affected by urban redevelopment programs. See Allydonn Realty Corp. 
v. Holyoke Housing Authy., supra, 295 (low cost housing to aid relocation); Papa- 
dinis V. Somerville, supra, 633-634 (prohibition on use of cleared land for residential 
purposes); Bowker v. Worcester, 334 Mass. 422, 426 (relocation plan). (3) There 
might be a shortage in housing from which Negroes could suffer more than other 
groups. See Russell v. Treasurer & Recr. Gen., 331 Mass. 501, 507. We cannot say 
that such possible legislative beliefs were "so irrational that none of these objects 
would result from the passage of the act." Supreme Malt Prod. Co. Inc. v. Alcoholic 
Beverages Control Comm., 334 Mass. 59, 62. See Howes Bros. Co. v. Unemployment 
Compensation Comm., 296 Mass. 275, 283-284. ' 

(b) We now come to a determination whether the means used to implement per- 
missible statutory objectives constitute, as to these respondents, an interference with 
their rights of "acquiring, possessing, and protecting property" to an unreasonable 
degree so as to constitute an impermissible method of accomplishing those objectives. 
As earlier noted, the respondents have neither alleged nor attempted to prove any 
financial loss. The harm they allege is an invasion of their freedom to deal with 
their property as they wish, including their "liberty of contract." See Commonwealth 



11 



V. Perry, 155 Mass. 117, 121; Opinion of the Justices, 267 Mass. 607, 610. Compare 
Opinion of the Justices, 337 Mass. 796, 798-799. A more precise statement would be 
that the respondents, one as owner and one as the owner's agent, are complaining 
about a restriction upon the ability of each to deal with the respondent Colangelo's 
property. 

As to the respondents, we do not observe an exceeding of the limits of the police 
power under Part II, c. 1, section 1, art. 4, which results in a violation of art. 1 of the 
Declaration of Rights or in a deprivation of property without due process of law under 
the Fourteenth Amendment. As to them, the statutory regulation falls within the 
established principle that "neither property rights nor contract rights are absolute; for 
the government cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his property to the detri- 
ment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of contract to work them harm. Equally 
fundamental with the private right is that of the public to regulate it in the common 
interest." Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 523. See Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. 
Missouri, 342 U.S. 421; Commonwealth v. Libbey. 216 Mass. 356, 357-358; Spector v. 
Building Inspector of Milton, 250 Mass. 63, 70; Paquette v. Fall River, 338" Mass. 368, 
375-376. 

The impact of G.L. c. 151B, section 4, upon the respondents we are unable to distin- 
guish on constitutional grounds from analogous situations where statutes prohibiting 
discrimination have been upheld. (1) Places of public accommodation, resort, and 
amusement. Bryant v. Rich's Grill, 216 Mass. 344, 347-348 (constitutionality not 
questioned.). Crawford v. Robert L. Kent, Inc. 341 Mass. 125 (constitutionality not 
questioned). See Opinion of the Justices, 247 Mass. 589, 595. In other States to the 
same effect, see Darius v. Apostolos, 68 Colo. 323, 330 (shoe shine shop); Pickett v. 
Kuchan, 323 111. 138, 141 (theatre); Bolden v. Grand Rapids Operating 'Corp. 239 
Mich. 318, 323 (theatre); Rhone v. Loomis, 74 Minn. 200, 203 (saloon); Messenger 
V. State, 25 Neb. 674, 677 (barber shop); People v. King, 110 N.Y. 418-428 (roller 
1 skating rink). There is no Federal constitutional problem. District of Columbia 
i V. John R. Thompson Co., Inc. 346 U.S. 100, 109. (2) Private employment. High- 
land Park v. Fair Employment Practices Comm. 364 Mich. 508, 514-518. Holland v. 
Edwards, 307 N.Y. 38 (constitutionality not questioned). Ross v. Arbury, 206 Misc. 
(N.Y.) 74 (constitutionality not questioned), affd, 285 App. Div. (N.Y.) 886. (3) Union 
membership or privileges. Railway Mail Assn. v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88, 93-94. 

Cases upholding restrictions upon the free and most profitable use of real estate per- 
suasive by way of analogy. (1) Zoning. Spector v. Building Inspector of Milton, 
250 Mass. 63, 68-70. Simon v. Ncedham, 311 Mass. 560, 565. Lamarre v. Commis- 
sioner of Pub. Works of Fall River, 324 Mass. 542, 545. Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. 
272 U.S. 365, 386-395. (2) Compelled remodeling. Paquette v. Fall River, 338 Mass. 
:m. Queenside Hills Realty Co., Inc. v. Saxl, 328 U.S. 80, 82-83. (3) Historic districts. 
Opinion of the Justices, 333 Mass. 773. 

Perhaps the most persuasive analogy is in the field of rent control. In Russell v. 
Treasurer and Recr. Gen. 331 Mass. 501, 507-508, we upheld a rent control statute 
designed to relieve a housing shortage. Cases in the Supreme Court of the United 
States upholding similar statutory limitations upon what rents landlords could charge 
tenants are Block v Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 155-158, Marcus Brown Holding Co., Inc. 
\. Feldman, 256 U.S. 170, 198, Edgar A. Levy Leasing Co., Inc. v. Siegel, 258 U.S. 
242, 246-248. See Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, 516-519. These cases, to be 
sure, dealt with rent controls which were temporary but so were the housing shortages. 

Statutes prohibiting discrimination in publicly assisted housing were upheld against 
charges of being a denial of the equal protection of the laws in Levitt & Sons, Inc. 

I 



12 



V. Division Against Discrimination in the State Dept. of Ediic. 31 N.J. 514, 532-534, 
app. dism. 363 U.S. 418 in Burks v. Poppy Consti. Co., Cal. 2d ,1 , and in 
Hudson V. Nixon, Cal. 2d , ,2 The court in the Levitt case intimated 
(page 531) that a contention that there was a want of due process likewise would 
have failed. In New York State Comm. Against Discrimination v. Pelham Hall 
Apartmeius. Inc. 10 Misc. 2d (N.Y.) 334, 340-342, a prohibition of discrimination as 
to rentals in publicly assisted housing was upheld as properly within the police power 
and as not an iniconstitutional deprivation of property. In O'Meara v. Washington 
State Bd. Against Discrimination, Wash. 2d , 3 cert. den. U.S. , 4 a statute 
prohibiting discrimination was invalidated by a five to four vote, as a denial of 
equal protection because limited to publicly assisted housing. The minority would 
have sustained the constitiuionality of the statute on all groiuids, and three of the 
majority intimated that but for the unreasonable classification, the statute would have 
been \alid. 

The respondents seem to accept that the cases upholding anti-discrimination statutes 
are based upon sound constitutional principles. The respondent Colangelo concedes 
that the "rent control cases are closer to the case at bar," and that "discrimination 
because of race or color in the rental of publicly assisted housing accommodations 
has a real, though somewhat tenuous relation to action by the State." The respon- 
dent Nahigian argues that anyone accepting government assistance, such as the Fed- 
eral Housing Administration and the Veterans' Administration, must do so on the 
government's terras and conditions. 

No part of G.L. C. 15 IB is a condition imposed by the Federal Housing Administra- 
tion or the Veterans' Administration. The problem we are considering at this point 
is whether this Commonwealth may legislate for valid objectives by imposing these 
restrictions on the freedom of these respondents in choosing tenants for their privately 
financed multiple-dAvelling. 

If the cases upholding anti-discrimination statutes are soundly decided, as we believe 
they are, there is no valid distinction on constitutional grounds from the case at bar. 
The lack of public assistance to the respondents' apartment house is not of crucial 
significance. The cases of Burks v. Poppy Constr. Co. Cal. 2d , , 5 Lee 
v. O'Hara, Cal. 2d T 6 Vargas v. Hampson, Cal. 2d , , ' 7 

and Martin v. New York, 22 Misc. 2d (N.Y.) 389 have so held. The California court 
upheld the application of a statute prohibiting discrimination in "all business estab- 
lishments" to the owners and sellers of a tract of houses, and to real estate brokers. 

Section 4, subsection 6, is really aimed at preventing discrimination in the business 
of housing. In its application to privately financed multiple-dwelling and contig- 
uously located housing accommodations, the statute seeks to reach leasing and selling 
when conducted as a business. As related to these respondents there is regulation of 
the 120-unit housing operation, which has not been shown to be substantially burden- 
some. The statute is in pattern with other anti-discrimination legislation. General 
Laws c. 272, section 92A (as amended through St. 1953, c. 437), and section 98 (as 
amended through St. 1950, c. 479, section 3) apply in "A place of public accommoda- 
tion, resort or amusement . . . (which) shall be deemed to include any place, whether 
licensed or unlicensed, which is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the 
general public . . Specifically enumerated are, among others, hotels, resorts, public 
carriers, garages, retail stores, restaurants, rest rooms, theatres and hospitals run for 
a profit. 



1. 57 Cal. Adv. Rep. 503, 515-516 

2. 57 Cal. Adv. Rep. 523, 524. 

3. 365 P 2d 1. 

4. (1962) 30 U.S.L. Week, 3307 

5. 57 Cal. Adv. Rep. 503, 511-512. 

6. 57 Cal. Adv. Rep. 517, 518 

7. 57 Cal. Adv. Rep. 519, 521-522. 



13 



3. We next give attention to the findings and order. General Laws c. 151B, section 
6 (as amended through St, 1957, c. 426, section 5), reads in part: "No objection that 
has not been urged before the commission shall be considered by (superior) court, 
unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extra- 
ordinary circumstances." No issue as to the findings and the order was raised before 
the commission. Counsel for each respondent chose to be present at the hearing 
solely to test constitutionality and did not interrogate the witnesses. Following the 
filing of the findings and order they took no action before the commission. 

Under an identical statutory provision, the New York Court of Appeals held that 
objections to an order not advanced until after the agency sought judicial enforce- 
ment of its order came too late. Holland v, Edwards, 307 N.Y. 38, 45-46. See, to the 
same effect, May Dept. Stores Co, v. National Labor Relations Bd., 326 U.S. 376, 
386n; National Labor Relations Bd. v. Cheney Calif Lumber Co. 327 U.S. 385, 388- 
389; National Labor Relations Bd. v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 
344, 350. In the disposition we make of this case we do not follow the procedure 
of the cited cases in the present circumstances. In subsequent cases, however, the 
parties will be on notice from this opinion, as well as from the statute, that they 
should raise before the commission any issues which they intend to present upon a 
judicial review of the commission's decision. 

The respondent Colangelo does not question the findings and the order in his answer 
to the enforcement petition. The respondent Nahigian alleges that both the findings 
and the order are, as to him in excess of the statutory authority of the commission 
and are unlawful and null and void; and that the "order is arbitrary, capricious, con- 
stitutes an abuse of discretion and is otherwise not in accordance with the provisions 
of c. 151 B." 

In his brief the respondent Colangelo argues that the order is void and should not be 
enforced, and that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence as required 
by G.L. c. 30A, section 14 (8) (e). He cites art. 15 of the Declaration of Rights. The 
respondent Nahigian in his brief argues that portions of the order are invalid and 
should not be enforced. It is at least doubtful whether he could, in any event, raise 
certain of these points on his own behalf although the respondent Colangelo might 
do so, since the impact of most of the order's provisions upon the respondent Na- 
higian is only in his capacity as agent for Colangelo. 

Not all these issues have been argued with sufficient definiteness to be a compliance 
with Rule 13 of the Rules for the Regulation of Practice before the Full Court 
(1952), 328 Mass. 698. Many terms of the order vitally affect the rights of the re- 
spondents and will continue to do so for some time to come. On the issue of dis- 
crimination, however, the finding is clearly supported by substantial evidence. 

Under the terms of the report we are in the same position as was the Superior Court 
at the time of the filing of the enforcement petition. G.L. c. 151B, section 6, c. 214, 
section 31. This includes the power "to make and enter ... an order or decree en- 
forcing, modifying, and enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in whole or in part 
the order of the commission . . ." G.L. c. 151 B, section 6. The section just cited 
allows any party to move "to remit the case to the commission in the interests of 
justice for the purpose of adducing additional specified and material evidence and 
seeking findings thereon, provided he shows reasonable grounds for the failure to 
adduce such evidence before the commission." 

Section 6 also provides, "The order or decision of the commission shall be reviewed 
in accordance with the standards for review provided in paragraph (8) of section 
fourteen of chapter thirty A." Section 14 allows remand to the agency in certain 
circumstances, for example, where the substantial rights of a party may have been 
prejudiced or where the agency decision is in excess of statutory authority. 

This being the first case of its kind to reach this court, it would be unfortunate if 
certain features of the order, which may become standard, should be established by 



14 



default. Various parts of the order raise doubts whether the commission has not 
in some respect exceeded its authority by imposing requirements upon the respon- 
dents ^vhich seem particularly extreme in a case of first impression where the basic 
issue is one of the general constitutionality of the statute. Accordingly, in the in- 
terests of justice and of a helpful presentation of similar cases in the future, we shall 
deal with the order in the following manner. 

Paragraphs 1 (a) and 2 (a) of the order^ are properly enforceable except for the 
reference (set out in the footnote in supplied italics) to "the most favored tenant or 
tenants" in paragraph 2 (a) (ii). A definite prohibition of discrimination against 
the intervener is what the statute authorizes. The "most favored" reference is un- 
necessarily vague, is not limited to tenants occupying $145 accommodations, and could 
lead to controversy in enforcement. The italicized clause should be eliminated from 
paragraph 2 (a) (ii). 

With respect to the remaining paragraphs of the order other than paragraph 1 (a) 
and paragraph 2 (a), if either or both of the respondents within seven days from 
the date of the rescript file a motion or motions with this court asking that the case 
be recommitted to the commission for further proceedings relating to certain specific 
issues raised by the remaining paragraphs, we shall make a further direction. 

A decree is to be entered enforcing paragraph 1 (a) and 2 (a) of the commission's 
order, but with the "most favored tenant" clause eliminated. If no motion respect- 
ing the remaining paragraphs of the order be filed as above provided, a supplemen- 
tary decree is to be entered enforcing the remaining paragraphs. 

So ordered. 

DECISION OF JUSTICE JACOB J. SPIEGEL 

SPIEGEL, J. The majority opinion sets forth a sound legal basis for upholding 
the constitutionality of the fair housing practices law (G.L. c. 151B) as it relates to 
privately owned multiple dwellings. With this interpretation of the statute I am in 
complete accord. I cannot, however, agree with the limitation of the order of the 
commission which the court imposed. 

There is no doubt that the respondents were engaged in unlawful discrimination 
against the intervener. The court held that "the issue of discrimination . . . the 
finding is clearly supported by substantial evidence." 



i"Upon the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and pursuant to section 5, c. IS IB, of the 
General Laws of Massachusetts, it is hereby ordered, by the Massachusetts Commission Against 
Discrimination that the respondents A. J. Colangelo and John Nahigian, their agents, servants, 
employees, assigns and successors shall: 
"1. Cease and desist from: 

"a. Denying to and withholding from complainant, Maurice Fowler, an apartment, together with 
the privileges and services and facilities relating thereto, at premises 1105 Lexington Street, Wal- 
tham, Massachusetts, known (and herein and after referred to) as Glenmeadow Apartments, . • . 

"2. Take the following affirmative action, which in the judgment of the Massachusetts Commis- 
sion Against Discrimination, will effectuate the Massachusetts Fair Housing Practices Law: 

"a. With respect to the housing accommodations sought by complainant: 

"(i) Set aside for, and offer to lease forthwith to, the complainant, the leasing period to com- 
mence at such time as the complainant can conveniently terminate or satisfactorily modify his 
present rental arrangements, an apartment of the type for which he applied at Glenmeadow Apart- 
ments or a substantially similar apartment, at a rental of $145 per month, for a period of not less 
than two years from the date of the right to occupancy under the lease. The complainant shall 
have a reasonable period of time to accept or reject said offer to lease. 

"(ii) If the complainant accepts such offer to lease, the respondents shall execute a written lease 
of the apartment to the complainant within five (5) days after receipt of written notice of such 
acceptance. The terms and conditions of such lease shall be substantially similar to the terms and 
conditions of leases executed by tenants or other apartments at Glenmeadow Apartments during the 
period August 1, 1960, to December 31, 1960; and the complainant shall be accorded substantially 
the same privileges, services, benefits and rental concessions accorded to the most favored tenant 
or tenants in Glenmeadow Apartments, whether such privilges, services, benefits or rental conces- 
sions have been granted by terms of lease or otherwise to such tenant or tenants. 

"(iii) If the complainant accepts the apartment and executes a lease therefor as aforesaid, re- 
spondents shall make said apartment available to the complainant fully ready for occupancy within 
ten (10) days after the execution of the lease, or at such other reasonable time as the complainant 
shall request . . ." 



15 



The testimony at the hearing before the commission is overwhelming as to the 
discrimination practiced by the respondents against the intervener. The record also 
reveals the flimsy pretexts resorted to by the respondents to conceal their practice of 
discrimination. The pretenses used by them to cloak their real intentions are hardly 
conducive to the belief that other prospective tenants would not be subjected to 
similar tactics. 

I readily concede that legislation, in and of itself, cannot eradicate bias and preju- 
dice from the minds of men. It may be argued that discrimination in the selection 
of tenants for a multiple dwelling is not an indication of personal bias on the part 
of a landlord. In my view, however, discrimination based on the hope of monetary 
gain and not upon a personal prejudice is even more reprehensible. In either event, 
I find no rational excuse for such behavior. 

When a person acts so as to create a "second class" of citizens, then the injunctive 
provisions of the law to prevent a recurrence of such a classification should be applied 
to the fullest extent. 

Because this is a case of first impression does not appear to me to be a sufficient 
reason for the court's hesitancy in enforcing paragraphs 1 (b) and 2 (b) of the order 
of the commission which require the respondents to cease and desist from "/g/iving 
consideration to the factors of race, creed, color or national origin in seeking and 
handling applications for apartments at Glenmeadow Apartments, in making inquiry 
as to the qualifications for tenancy of applicants for apartments at Glenmeadow 
Apartments, in passing upon such qualifications and in accepting or rejecting said 
applicants, in negotiating for and executing leases at Glenmeadow Apartments and 
in giving occupancy to tenants at Glenmeadow Apartments, and in the conditions 
and privileges of tenancy at Glenmeadow Apartments and in the furnishing of facil- 
ities or services in connection therewith" (paragraph 1 /b/), and to "/a/pply the same 
standards of evaluation to all applicants for apartments at Glenmeadow Apartments, 
without regard to race, creed, color or national origin" (paragraph 2 /b/). 

These paragraphs of the commission's order are neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. 
They are necessary to secure full compliance with the provisions of the statute. See 
International Salt Co., Inc. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 400; Federal Trade Comm. 
v. National Lead Co. 352 U.S. 419, 429-430. 

It is my belief that the commission was thoroughly justified in refusing to give 
the respondents another chance to engage in an illegal act or acts of discrimination 
against others without taking the risk of being found guilty of contempt. 

In addition to those paragraphs of the order of the commission enforced by the 
court, I would enforce paragraphs 1 (b) and 2 (b) quoted above. 

DECISION OF JUSTICE PAUL G. KIRK 

KIRK, J. I cannot in conscience accede to the views of my esteemed colleagues. 
At the same time I doubt if any useful purpose would now be served by a lengthy 
dissent, or by pointing out what I deem to be the frailties and the fallacies of the 
majority opinion. The opinion provides, I respectfully suggest, a fragile platform for 
this 'great leap forward.' 

The banishment of discrimination because of race, creed, color or national origin 
is a wholly desirable moral and social objective. The objective has been pursued 
vigorously and relentlessly. Voluntary private associations have labored for it. The 
religious have preached and strived for it. The expenditures of vast sums of public 
funds for various public purposes at all echelons of government have been made 
subject to it. Regulatory and licensing powers over private business enterprises which 
cater to the transient and casual conveniences or desires of the public at large have 
been exercised to promote it. The results of these and other efforts have yet to be 
measured and made known. 

And now, indeed by a six-word amendment,^ purely private property lies exposed 
to the full impact of the drive. It should give us pause. 



^St. 1959, c. 239, §2. 



16 



The subject of the legislation is the owner (or the person in control) of purely 
pri\'ate property which is to be used as a home for three or more families (a "family" 
may consist of one person living alone, G.L. c. 151B, § 1, cl. 11). The effect, if not 
the object of the legislation, under the shibboleth of antidiscrimination, is to author- 
ize a public body to determine who shall occupy the privately owned premises and 
to apply sanctions for disobedience to its determination. This is, I respectfully sub- 
mit, a deprivation of one of the essential attributes of ownership and an invasion of 
a constitutionally protected interest to an extent which has never before been at- 
tempted in this Commonwealth. 

I firmly believe that such a deep invasion of rights in purely privately owned 
property for residence purposes is repugnant to, and cannot stand in conflict with, 
the "natural, essential, and unalienable rights ... of acquiring, possessing, and pro- 
tecting property" recognized and protected by art. 1 of the Declaration of Rights. 

The court has, nevertheless, given its approval to the legislation without the 
slightest showing which would justify it even temporarily or on an emergency basis. 
Surely this court as the guardian of our Constitution should require more than mere 
legislative fiat before countenancing legislation of this character. The bare exercise 
of the police power by the Legislature should not, ipso facto, be held to constitute, 
in all cases, a legitimate exercise thereof. Thus to hold would drain the constitu- 
tional restraints of their vitality. However, in context, the fair implication of the 
majority opinion is that the legislative act is conclusive. 

It is also my firm conviction that the degree of interference authorized by the 
statute constitutes an appropriation for a public purpose of the owner's property with- 
out his consent, with no showing that "the public exigencies require" it, and for 
which the owner has received no compensation whatsoever. This is in direct viola- 
tion of art. 10 of the Declaration of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States. 

Finally, the commission in its order has resorted to coercive measures^ which I 
think are per se both alien and inimical to the letter, the spirit and the principles 
of the Constitutions of our Commonwealth and our country. I would so hold. 

The complainant, Maurice Fowler, was given a lease and took occupancy of an 
apartment made available to him. 



^The commissioner's order to the respondents, quoted in part in the footnote of the majority opinion, 
continues as follows in paragraph 2: 

"c. Issue written instructions in a form satisfactory to the Commission to all agents, servants 
and employees of Glenmeadow Apartments and Auburndale Realty, and to all other persons now 
engaged or employed, or who may hereafter be employed or engaged within one year of the date 
of this order by the respondents, explaining the requirements and objectives of the Massachusetts 
Fair Housing Practices Law and advising each such person of his individual responsibility for 
compliance with the Massachusetts Fair Housing Practices Law and his obligation to make such 
compliance meaningful and effective. Copies of such instructions signed by the said persons 
individually and acknowledging receipt and understanding thereof shall be transmitted to the Com- 
mission by the respondents. 

"d. Post the Commission Notice conspicuously in easily accessible and well-lighted places at 
Glenmeadow Apartments, where it may be readily observed by those seeking housing accommoda- 
tions or facilities or services in connection therewith. 

"e. Transmit to the Commission forthwith a statement listing each of the apartments at Glen- 
meadow Apartments, which on the date of this order, was not rented or leased, giving the desig- 
nation of the apartment, the number of rooms and the rental being asked. 

"f. Include forthwith in their usual advertising media for the next ninety (90) days in all ad- 
vertisements for Glenmeadow Apartments including newspaper, brochure, pamphlet, booklet, sign or 
otherwise, a separate statement in bold type couched in a form satisfactory to_ the Commission 
giving notice that Glenmeadow Apartments are subject to the Massachusetts Fair Housing Prac- 
tices Law and that the apartments therein are available for rental without reference to race, creed, 
color or national origin. 

"g. Compensate the complainant in full for the following monetary damages incurred by him on 
account of the respondent's discrimination: 

"(i) The difference between the rental for an apartment at Glenmeadow Apartments and the 
rental he paid to live elsewhere from November 1, 1960, to March 1, 1961, or to such other date 
as the complainant may conveniently occupy an apartment in Glenmeadow Apartments, whichever 
date comes first. 

"(ii) In the event the complainant accepts a lease at Glenmeadow Apartments, the cost of mov- 
ing his furniture from his present residence to Glenmeadow Apartments. 

"(iii) In the event the complainant accepts a lease at Glenmeadow Apartments, any reasonable 
amount he may be obligated to pay in order to terminate or modify his present rental arrange- 
ments. 

"3. Notify the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination at its ofl&ces at 41 Tremont 
Street, Boston 8, Massachusetts, in writing within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this 
order, as to steps respondents have taken to comply with each item in this Order." 



17 



Fair Housing Formal Hearing 

During the year of this report there were two complaints certified to a public 
hearing. Both complaints concerned violations of the fair housing practices statute. 

The history of one of the complaints including its final settlement follows: 

On September 24, 1962 Mr. Simon Turner of Roxbury filed a verified complaint 
alleging that on the day previous he had been told by the owner of a multiple 
dwelling that he could not rent a vacant apartment because of his color. 

In the Boston Sunday Globe of September 23, 1962 there appeared an advertise- 
ment for a vacant apartment located at 6 Alexander Street, Dorchester, The apart- 
ment as advertised included six rooms, gas heat and a rental of fifty-five dollars per 
month. A telephone number listed in the advertisement was called and the owner 
informed Mr. Turner that the apartment was available and that he was welcome to 
take a look at it. Complainant was instructed to obtain the key from either the 
first or second floor tenants. If after viewing the apartment complainant was still 
interested he could come to the owner's house at 389 Morrissey Boulevard, Quincy 
and make a deposit. The owner gave his name as Shea. 

Complainant declared in his sworn statement that he went to 6 Alexander Street 
and after talking with the first and second floor tenants and being told that they 
did not have a key he tried the door to the vacant apartment on the third floor. 
The door was unlocked and he and his wife viewed the apartment. 

In the evening, accompanied by his brother-in-law, complainant dro\e to Quincy 
to see the owner. Mr. Shea, according to the complainant, answered the door-bell. 
When told that it was he to whom Mr. Shea had spoken to earlier about placing a de- 
posit the complainant alleged that Mr. Shea refused to rent the apartment to him 
because of his color. In addition, complainant alleged that Mr. Shea gave as his 
reason that all of his tenants were white and that "they did not want to mix the 
races." 

On September 25, 1962 an investigation of the allegations was begun. It revealed 
that the property in question was owned by Michael E. and Nora Shea and that it 
constituted one of many parcels of real estate owned by the Sheas. 

Mr. Shea admitted that he had informed the complainant that he could not rent 
to him because his white tenants would move out and because they did not believe 
in mixing the races. 

He claimed that the apartment had been rented before the complainant had come 
to his home with the deposit. Mr. Shea produced a hand-written receipt for five 
dollars which he claimed proved his contention that the apartment had been rented. 
He had no record of the name and address of the person to whom he claimed he 
had rented the apartment. The receipt was dated September 24, 1962 the day after 
the complainant had applied for the vacancy. 

The Investigating Commissioner found probable cause and on October 2, 1962 
issued a three day notice informing the respondent that he was applying to the 
Superior Court for an injunction to restrain respondent from renting the apartment 
until the matter had been adjudicated. 

On October 8, 1962 as the result of a trial the Court granted a restraining order 
to remain in effect for sixty days. 

Attempts to conciliate having failed the complaint was certified for a formal hear- 
ing. 

On November 1, 1962 the formal hearing was held before Commissioners Mildred 
H. Mahoney and Ben G. Shapiro. The hearing lasted a full day and 162 pages of 
testimony were taken. 

The Findings Of Fact, Conclusion Of Law And Order of the Commission was 
issued on November 30, 1962. 

Respondents appealed for modification of the Order and on December 17, 1962 a 
stipulation was drawn and signed by the Commission and the respondent. 

Mr, and Mrs. Turner and their four children were given occupancy forthwith. 

The Findings Of Fact, Conclusion Of Law And Order as well as the stipulation 
modifying the Order follows: 



18 



The Complainant 

1. The complainant, Simon Turner, is a Negro, married with three children at 
the time of the complaint and has four children at this time, of legal age and is 
employed by General Plating Corporation, 228 Broadway, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

2. On or about September 23, 1962, the complainant, Simon Turner, sought to rent 
an apartment at 6 Alexander Street, Dorchester, Massachusetts at a monthly rental 
of $55.00 per month which apartment had been advertised on that day and at a 
previous time as available for rental purposes. The complainant sought the apart- 
ment at 6 Alexander Street, Dorchester, Massachusetts on account of the financial 
burden of maintaining the apartment in which he lived at that time. 

Housing Accommodations 

3. The premises at 6 Alexander Street, Dorchester, Massachusetts is a multiple 
apartment dwelling with accommodations for four families. 

The Respondents 

4. The respondents, Michael E. and Nora Shea, reside at 389 William Morrissey 
Boulevard, Quincy, Massachusetts and own the multiple dwelling at 6 Alexander 
Street, Dorchester, Massachusetts. 

The Unlawful Discriminatory Practices 

5. The respondents have discriminated and are discriminating against the com- 
plainant by refusing to rent or lease and by otherwise denying to and withholding 
from him, because of his color, housing accommodations located in multiple dwelling 
premises at 6 Alexander Street, Dorchester, Massachusetts. 

ORDER 

Upon the basis of the foregoing Findings Of Fact and pursuant to Section 5, Chap- 
ter 15 IB, of the General Laws of Massachusetts, it is hereby 
ORDERED, by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 
That the respondents Michael E. and Nora Shea, their agents, servants, employees, 
assigns and successors shall: 

1. Cease and desist from denying to and withholding from the complainant, 
Simon Turner, the instant apartment on the third floor of the multiple dwelling at 
6 Alexander Street, Dorchester, Massachusetts, Suffolk County, Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts, together with the privileges and services and facilities relating thereto. 

2. Take the affirmative action, which in the judgment of the Massachusetts Com- 
mission Against Discrimination, will effectuate the Massachusetts Fair Housing Law: 

a. With respect to the housing accommodations sought by complainant: 

(i) Set aside for, and offer to lease in writing forthwith to the complainant, 
the leasing period to commence at such time as the complainant can 
conveniently terminate or satisfactorily modify his present rental ar- 
rangement, at a rental of fifty-five dollars ($55.) per month, the instant 
apartment on the third floor of the premises at 6 Alexander Street, 
Dorchester or a substantially similar arpartment at that address which 
the complainant deems acceptable, for a period of one year or such 
lesser period as the complainant deems acceptable, 
(ii) If the complainant accepts such offer for written lease, the respondents 
shall execute a written lease of the apartment to the complainant within 
five (5) days after the receipt of written notice of such acceptance. The 
complainant shall be accorded substantially the same privileges, services, 
benefits and rental concessions accorded the other tenants at 6 Alexander 
Street, Dorchester whether such privileges, services, benefits or rental 
concessions have been granted by terms of written lease or otherwise to 
such tenant. 

(iii) If the complainant accepts the apartment and executes a lease therefor 
as aforesaid, respondents shall make said apartment available to the 



19 



complainant fully ready for occupancy within ten (10) days after the 
execution of the lease, or at such other reasonable time as the com- 
plainant shall request. 
3. Notify the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination at its offices at 
41 Tremont Street, Boston 8, Massachusetts, in writing within thirty (30) days of 
service of this Order, as to steps respondents have taken to comply with each item 
in this Order. 

Stipulation 

WHEREAS, the Commission Against Discrimiation has found that the Respondents 
have discriminated against the Complainant by refusing to rent to him an apartment 
in the multiple dwelling located at 6 Alexander Street, Dorchester, Massachusetts: 

WHEREAS, the Commission Against Discrimination promulgated an Order against 
the Respondents on November 30, 1962 directing them to rent an apartment to the 
Complainant at 6 Alexander Street, Dorchester, Massachusetts on terms set out in 
that Order: 

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to a modification of that Order which will 
remain in effect as long as the Respondents abide by the terms of said modification: 
NO\V THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 

1. The Respondents will make the third floor apartment at 6 Alexander Street, 
Dorchester, Massachusetts available to the Complainant on January 1, 1963. 

2. The rent for said apartment will be $55.00 a month for four months from 
January 1, 1963. 

3. In addition to the rent, the Complainant will pay for the following utilities: 

a. Electricity 

b. Gas for heating and for the stove. 

4. The Respondents may not require an increase in rent from the Complainant 
prior to May 1, 1963, and then only after having given thirty (30) days notice to the 
Complainant. 

5. The Respondents may not increase the rent of the Complainant unless they 
furnish to the Commission Against Discrimination evidence satisfactor)' to the Com- 
mission that other tenants at 6 Alexander Street, Dorchester, Massachusetts are pay- 
ing the same or comparable rents. 

6. In no event may the Respondents raise the rent of the Complainant above 
$75.00 a month. 

7. It is expressly understood that the Failure of the Respondents to carry out the 
terms of this agreement will result in the termination of this agreement and the 
institution of appropriate legal action to carry out the terms of the Order promulgated 
by the Commission Against Discrimination on November 30, 1962. 

8. In the event that the Respondents sell or in any other way dispose of their 
interest in the premises at 6 Alexander Street, Dorchester, Massachusetts while the 
Complainant is a tenant there, the Respondents will notify the Commission Against 
Discrimination of that fact and will also notify the prospective third party purchaser 
of the property at 6 Alexander Street, Dorchester, Massachusetts of the tenancy of 
the Complainant under the terms and conditions of this Stipulation and the Order 
of the Commission dated November 30, 1962. 

9. It is understood and agreed that so far as peiTnitted by law any third party 
buyer for value taking title to the instant premises within the time limited by this 
Stipulation and the Order of November 30, 1962 will do so subject to all rights and 
obligations existing by their terms among Complainant, Respondents and the Com- 
mission Against Discrimination. (Complaint No. PrH-IV-44-C) 

Public Housing Survey Statistics 

One of the activities of the Commission is to make a tenant selection survey each 
year of Public Housing Authorities. 

This year twenty-seven Authorities were surveyed. 



20 



To permit a comparison the statistics of the non-white tenant population for the 
years 1960, 1961 and 1962 are recorded in this section. 



BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 


No. of Units 


No. of Non-White Families 






I you 


lyol 


1962 


JBroadway 


y74 


13 


14 


15 


Camden Street 


/a 


71 


71 


71 


Commonwealth 


648 


18 


18 


14 


Faneuil 


258 


2 


2 


2 


Fairmount 













Archdale 


4oo 


5 


5 


4 




ODt 


5 


7 


5 


r^iillivijn Rrfci 1 1 #^ V* Q t'H 













ridixKiiii r iciu. 


D\rz 




13 


lo 






U 


U 


U 


Total 




1 9/1 




1 9*7 
l47 












Charlestown 


1 liiQ 


4 


5 


4 


Mission Hill 










I 


Lenox Street 


ouo 


305 


299 


298 


Orchard Park 


^'7 A 
I I't 


143 


179 


235 


ooiitn x.na 




259 


271 


275 


Heath Street 




2 


6 


11 


East Boston 













Franklin Hill Avenue 


375 


15 


16 


15 


Whittier Street 


200 


188 


187 


185 


Washington and Beech Sts. 


9*7^ 


2 


2 


3 


Mission Hill Extension 


Ooo 


4/0 




OU4 


DHJllllCy X tllK 


1 OA 


1 '71 

171 


1 QQ 

loo 


1 OA 




I ,D\rt 


lOO 


lot 


904 


Old Harbor Village 


1,016 


f\ 
V 


V 


u 






2 


o 
4 


u 


Total 


10,156 


1,733 


1,831 


1.931 


Housing For The Elderly 










Bickford 


64 




— 


8 


Jamaica Pond 


44 









Annapolis 


56 






1 


Ashmont 


54 









Elm Hill 


86 






15 


Franklin Field 


80 






1 


Total 


384 






25 


BROCKTON 


HOUSING AUTHORITY 






State Program 


No. of Units 


No. of 


Non-White Families 






1960 


1961 


1962 




284 


6 


10 


10 


Federal Program 


100 


7 


7 


8 


CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY 






State Program 


No. of Units 


No. of 


Non-White Families 






1960 


1961 


1962 


Woodrow Wilson Court 


69 


2 


2 


3 


JefiEerson Park 


109 


11 


7 


9 


Lincoln Way 


60 


2 


1 


2 


Roosevelt Towers 


228 


20 


21 


22 


Jackson Gardens 


46 











Jefferson Park Extension 


200 


13 


9 


11 


Total 


"712 


48 


40 


~47 



21 



Federal Program 

Wasjiington Elms 
Putnam Gardens 
New Towne Court 
Corcoran 

Total 



324 


39 


38 


39 


123 


45 


42 


43 


294 


12 


14 


16 


152 


4 


4 


5 


893 


100 


98 


103 



FALMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Procr^xm No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1960 


1961 


1962 


Amveis Avenue 


50 


6 


5 


4 


Mayflower 


24 











Total 


74 


6 


5 


4 



Hoi SING For The Elderly 
Salt Sea 30 _ _ 1 



HOLYOKE HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

Beaudoin \'illage 
Minnie R. Dwight Village 
Edwin A. Seibel Apartments 

Total 

Federal Program 
Jackson Parkway 
Lyman Terrace 
Henry Toepfert Apartments 

Total 

Housing For The Elderly 
John J. Zeilinski Apartments 
P. A. Coughlin Apartments 
Beaudry Boucher Apartments 

Total 150 





1960 


1961 


1962 


219 


8 


1 


1 


42 











40 











301 


8 




1 


219 


1 








167 


3 


4 


4 


98 


5 


5 


16 


484 


9 


9 


20 


64 









55 









31 






1 



NEW BEDFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1960 


1961 


1962 


Parkdale 


100 


3 


3 


4 


Blue Meadows 


150 


14 


14 


15 


Nashmont 


80 











Crestview-Westwood (Elderly) 


75 


2 


2 


1 


Total 


405 


19 


19 


20 


ederal Program 










Bay Village 


200 


143 


155 


163 


Presidential Heights 


200 


2 





2 


Brickenwood 


300 


18 


16 


17 


Westlaw^n 


200 


42 


44 


47 


Total 


"900 


205 


~215 


229 



22 



PITTSFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Progr.\m No. of Units No. of Non- White Families 







1960 


1961 


1962 


Wilson Park 


126 











Francis Plaza (Elderly) 


40 





1 


1 


Wahconah Heights (Elderly) 


68 











Total 


234 





1 


1 



Federal Program 

Victory Hill 99 



PLYMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1960 1961 1962 

Olmstead Terrace and 
Standish Court 40 12 3 



SPRINGFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Progr.\m No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1960 1961 1962 

Reed Village 200 15 18 32 

Robinson Gardens 136 12 12 12 

Duggan Park 196 12 16 20 

Carpe Diem (Elderly) 75 111 

Harry P. Hogan Apartments 32 — 3 3 

Total 639 40 50 68 



WORCESTER HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program No. 

Curtis Apartments 
Lakeside Apartments 
George F. Booth 

Memorial Apartments 

Total 

Federal Program 
Great Brook Valley Gardens 
Mayside Lane Apartments 
Addison Streets Apartments 

Total 



of Units No. of Non-White Families 





1960 


1961 


1962 


390 


9 


5 


6 


204 











75 








1 


669 


9 


5 


7 


600 


17 


19 


17 


50 










50 










700 


17 


19 


~17 



ARLINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

Menotomy Manor 
Drake Village 

Total 





1960 


1961 


1962 


176 








2 


72 











248 








2 



BARNSTABLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1960 1961 1962 

General Patton 40 4 10 12 



23 



BROOKLINE HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 

Egmont Street Development 
High Street Development 
Marion Street Development 

Total 

Federai- Program 
Walnut Street 



No. of Units 



No. of Non While Families 





1960 


1961 


1962 


114 








4 


117 








1 


60 



















l91 








5 


100 






2 



State Program 



Federal Program 



CHELSEA HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units 

350 
200 



No. of Non-While Families 
1960 1961 1962 
1 



State Program 



EVERETT HOUSING AUTHORITY 



No. of Units 



Corbett Hill 
Winthrop Road 
Cherry Street 

Golden Age Circle (Elderly) 
Proctor Road 

Total 



No. of Non-White Families 





1960 


1961 


1962 


268 





17 


17 


60 





3 


2 


64 





3 


3 


40 











120 




1 


1 


552 





24 


23 



State Program 



Federal Program 



FRAMINGHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units 

276 

125 1 



No. of Non-White Families 
1960 1961 1962 
1 1 1 



2 



LAWRENCE HOUSING AUTHORIl Y 



State Program 



No. of Units 



No. of N oil White Families 







1960 


1961 


1962 


Stadium Courts 


256 


1 


3 


6 


Hancock Courts 


195 


3 


3 


25 


Total 


451 


4 


6 


"~31 


Federal Progr.'VM 










Merrimack Courts 


292 


4 


4 


3 


Beacon Courts 


208 


1 





1 


Total 


500 


5 


4 


4 


Housing For The Elderly 










Rev. James O'Reilly 


83 









Rev. C. Bertrand Bower 


24 









Msgr. Edmond D. Daly 


30 









Total 


"m 










24 



LOWELL HOUSING AUTHORITY 










iVo. o/ 


Noil White 


Familie 






lyou 


1961 


1962 


Gorham Street 


292 


1 





1 


Lakeview Aventie 


12 











Aiken Street 


20 











Concord Street 


16 











Hale Street 


15 











Total 




355 




1 


n 


\ 


Federal Program 










North Common Village 


536 








1 


Chelmsford Street 


165 











Bishop Maikham Village 


372 





3 


1 


Total 


1,073 





3 


2 


IV r A T r» C M 

MAljUJtl.rN 


HOUSING AUTHORITY 






State Program 


xVo. of Vnils 


No. of 


Non- White 


Familie 






I960 


1961 


1962 




282 


2 


1 


1 


Federal Program 












250 


10 


12 


12 



State I'rogram 



Federal Program 



MEDFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY 
No. of Units 

150 

150 2 



No. of Non- While Families 
1960 1961 1962 
2 2 2 



State Program 



REVERE HOUSING AUTHORITY 



Federal Program 
Housing For The Elderly 



No. of Units 



No. of Non-White Families 





1960 


1961 


1962 


286 











149 











82 










SOMERVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 



No. of Units 



No. of Non-White Families 







1960 


1961 


1962 


Mystic River 


240 











Clarendon Hill 


216 











Capon Court 


64 


1 


1 


2 


Total 


520 


1 


1 


2 


Federal Program 










Mystic View 


216 


1 


1 





Highland Garden 


42 








2 


Prospect Hill Towers 


100 






2 


Total 


358 


1 


1 


4 



25 



TAUNTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

Riverside Apartments 
Highland Heights 

Total 

Federal Program 
Fairfax Gardens 





J 960 


1961 


1962 


102 


10 


11 


13 


40 


2 


2 


3 


142 


12 


13 


16 


150 


8 


13 


13 



WATERTOWN HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non -While Families 







1960 


1961 


1962 


West End 


168 











East End 


60 











Waverly Avenue (Elderly) 


40 










Total 


268 












WEYMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1960 1961 1962 
208 111 



WINTHROP HOUSING AUTHORITY 

St\te Progr.\m No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1960 1961 1962 
73 



WOBURN HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1960 


1961 


1962 


Creston Avenue 


68 











Webster Avenue 


60 











Liberty Avenue 


48 











Total 


176 












Federal Progr^am 

Spring Court 100 111 



FAIR EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES 

Secondary Schools 

The admissions policies and practices of the Independent (private) secondary 
schools in Massachusetts were made the subject of intensive study by the Commission 
during the past year. Of the 175 Independent schools of the secondary level over 
half were visited in person. The rest were contacted by mail and telephone. Time 
did not allow for all Independent schools to be visited prior to this report. The 
study will be continued until all schools have been visited. The check disclosed 
that four schools have closed their doors; two new schools were opened and at least 
five more were reported to be organizing for opening at some future date. 

Twelve schools were found to be obtaining information by means of questions on 
their admission applications and/or correspondence prior to the admission of appli- 
cants which were judged to be of a discriminatory nature by the Commission. Four 



26 



schools were still asking for the "place of birth" of the applicant; two were asking 
"birthplace of father and mother"; two schools not classified as "religious or de- 
nominational institutions" were asking about the church of attendance; and four 
were asking for photographs. The violative questions not found on the admission 
applications were found to be in follow-up correspondence from the school acknowl- 
edging the receipt of an application. The requests for photographs were not made 
outright but were couched in such language as " . . . the applicant may submit a 
recent photograph or snap-shot if he wishes to." 

In those instances where the schools were seeking information in violation of the 
law, they were advised and given an explanation of the Fair Educational Practices 
Act. All deleted the violative questions and made the necessary revisions to bring 
about compliance with the law. All of the secondary schools visited stated that they 
now understand the provisions of the Fair Educational Practices Act and realize that 
questions and information with reference to the birth, race, religion and photograph 
of applicants may not be obtained until the applicant has been accepted for admis- 
sion. The admission officers were cautioned also not to try to obtain such informa- 
tion through oral interviews prior to admittance. One case was found where casual 
questions about "the groups you belong to" elicited information about the church 
attended. 

In the public high school field contacts were made With 53 schools where copies 
of the Commission's brochure "Discrimination — Danger to Democracy" were being 
used in social studies classes. The entire supply of the latest printing (1962) of this 
combined work of the Commission and the Massachusetts Department of Education 
was exhausted early in the year. Over 9,000 copies were requested by school officials. 
The Commission received numerous favorable comments on the brochure from teachers 
of Sociology, Problems of Democracy, U. S. History and State Government. The Com- 
mission contemplates having additional copies published and available for distribu- 
tion in 1963. 

Colleges 

Few complaints have been received with regard to admission practices at the college 
level. The Commission has continued to maintain contact wih the Directors of Ad- 
mission. In nearly all instances the latter have been helpful and cooperative. With 
reference to complaints one institution was found to maintain an admission appli- 
cation which asked "place of birth." This violative question was deleted. Two 
other institutions were discovered that asked discriminatory questions or suggested 
that photographs be supplied by applicants. These two were at the graduate school 
level and the admission officers explained that they were desirous of acquiring the 
photographs of foreign students who could not be interviewed prior to admission. 
Since the law does not permit exemptions relative to foreign students, the admission 
officers were not permitted to have photographs. Such information as is needed to 
establish desirability and eligibility is to be secured through references and other 
questions. 

The colleges of the Commonwealth have initiated action on their own concerning 
the practices of racial and/or religious discrimination by Greek letter fraternities. 
A number of the colleges have established rules that prohibit fraternities and soror- 
ities which discriminate, from operating on their campuses. 

EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS 

Negro Apprentice Survey 

On February 2, 1962 Mr. James M. Harkless, chairman, Labor Committee, Boston 
Branch, National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People and its exec- 
utive secretary, Edward L. Cooper, conferred with the Commission to request that a 
survey be made in Boston to determine the number of Negro apprentices indentured 
in a formal apprenticeship training program. 

With the assistance of Hubert L. Connor, Director, Division of Apprentice Train- 
ing, Massachusetts Department of Labor and Industries, and John McDonough, As- 
sistant Director, a plan was drawn up to survey 138 local unions. 



27 



On March 9, 1962 and April 6, 1962 the Commission met with the NAACP officials 
and with Messrs. Connor and McDonough to discuss and analyze the returns of the 
questionnaire. 

On June 29, 1962 the Commission announced that the survey had been completed. 
The following is a compilation of certain facts gathered in the survey. 

There were 138 local unions contacted by letter or personal visit in the survey 
to determine the number of Negroes receiving training as apprentices. 

Answers to the questionnaire sent to the 138 unions were obtained from 122. 

Fifty of the unions reported participation in an active apprenticeship program. 

The fifty unions had a total membership of 21,689 of which 319 or 1.4% were 
Negroes. 

There were 1,297 indentured apprentices, fifteen (15) of whom or 1.1% were 
Negroes. 

Ten unions reported that applicants shoidd apply to the Joint Apprentice Coimcil 
of their particular trade. 

Nine unions recommended applying directly to the union officials. 

Twenty-six unions stated that the employers appointed the personnel to be ap- 
prenticed. 

Five unions had apprentices selected by Federal Civil Service examinations. 
Each union declared that a qualified Negro would be given equal opportunity. 
The age requirement ranged from seventeen to twenty-four years of age. 
The applicant was required to be in good health and of good moral character. 
All required a high school diploma. 

Council Activities 

Chapter 151B of the General Laws, Section 3, Paragraph 8, empowers the Com- 
mission "To create such advisory agencies and conciliation councils ... as in its 
judgment will aid in effectuating the purposes of this chapter . . . Such councils shall 
be composed of representative citizens serving without pay . . ." 

This year the Commission has added an Advisory Council on Housing to its lists 
of Councils making the number nine. 

The Commission has benefited greatly by the interest and assistance of its councils. 
For a year or more the idea of organizing an Advisory Council on Housing had been 
under consideration. The Fair Housing Federation and its numerous local Housing 
Committees applauded such a step and felt it would be very advantageous to have 
the housing industry represented. With the help of leaders in the housing industry 
plans were completed for a Council made up of representatives of the housing in- 
dustry and representatives of the various groups most concerned with promoting 
integrated housing. 

On June 29, 1962 an invitation to join such a Council was sent out and a unani- 
mous acceptance was received. 

Twenty-seven members attended the first meeting on October 16, 1962. At that 
meeting the agenda discussed was — 1. Who's Who? 2. The Law Against Discrimina- 
tion as Applied to Housing. 3. The Functions of the Commission. 4. How it 
Operates with Respect to Enforcement; to Education. 5. Areas for Future Study. 

The fifth item received the most attention. It was the consensus that a Steering 
Committee should be appointed by the Commission to plan the agenda for the next 
meeting and subsequent meetings. This Steering Committee is made up of Robert 
E. Segal, Chairman, Maurice E. Frye, Jr., Alan Gartner, Alfred W, Halper, John 
W. Kunhardt, and Mrs. Muriel Snowden. 

A number of bills had been brought to the attention of the Commission. These 
were referred to the Steering Committee and subsequently to the entire Council. 

In early December the three MCAD Commissioners decided to sponsor one of these 
bills drafted originally by Mr, Halper and this bill S-350 was presented to the General 
Court by Senator Leslie B. Cutler and Senator A. Frank Foster. Because this bill 
can be of such importance it is quoted in full. 

"SENATE No. 350 

By Mr. Foster, petition of Mildred H. Mahoney, A. Frank Foster, Leslie B. Cutler 



28 



and others for legislation to extend the application of the Massachusetts fair prac- 
tices law with regard to housing. Mercantile Affairs. 

An Act Extending The Application Of The Massach;usetis Fair Practices Law. 

Section 1. The general court hereby finds and declares that the availability to the 
inhabitants of the commonwealth of the right to purchase or rent housing accommo- 
dations free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin is 
necessary to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the public; that a major 
portion of the housing offered to the general public for sale or rental is not subject 
to the present fair practices law of the commonwealth; that discrimination in the 
sale and rental of such housing tends to restrict certain minority groups to relatively 
small areas, and tends to encourage slum conditions through density of population, 
with concomitant congestion and exposure to crime and disease; tends to force cer- 
tain minority groups into substandard housing; with disproportionately high rents 
and restiicted educational, employment and recreational opportunities; that urban 
renewal, highway construction and other governmental programs have displaced and 
are displacing large numbers of families of certain minority groups; that the afore- 
said housing discrimination tends to impede the relocation of such families, and tends 
to force them into the aforesaid relatively small and already overcrowded areas, thus 
intensifying and further aggravating all of the problems set forth above; that on 
certain income levels a shortage of housing exists from which because of discrimina- 
tion certain minority groups suffer to a disproportional extent and that for all of 
tlie aforesaid reasons the enactment of this act is a public necessity. 

Section 2. Section one of chapter one hundred fifty-one B of the General Laws is 
hereby amended by inserting after sub-division twelve, inserted by chapter two hun- 
dred thirty-nine of the acts of 1959, the following subdivision: — 13. The term "other 
covered housing accommodations" includes all housing accommodations not speci- 
fically covered under subsections 10, 11, and 12 which are directly or through an 
agent made generally available to the public for sale or lease or rental, by advertis- 
ing in a newspaper or otherwise, by posting of a sign or signs or a notice or notices 
on the premises or elsewhere, by listing with a broker, or by any other means of 
public offering. 

Section 3. Section four of chapter one hundred fifty-one B of the General Laws 
is hereby amended by inserting after subsection six, as amended by chapter one hun- 
dred twenty-eight of the acts of 1961, the following subsection: — 7. For the owner, 
lessee, sublessee, real estate broker, assignee or managing agent of other covered hous- 
ing accommodations or of land intended for the erection of any housing accommoda- 
tion included under subsections 10, II, 12 or 13 of section 1, or other person having 
the right of ownership or possession or right to rent or lease, or sell, or negotiate for 
the sale or lease of such land or accommodations, or any agent or employee of such 
a person: — (a) to refuse to rent or lease or sell or negotiate for sale or lease or other- 
wise to deny to or withhold from any person or group of persons such accommoda- 
tions or land because of the race, creed, color, national origin or national ancestry 
of such person or persons; (b) to discriminate against any person because of his race, 
creed, color, national origin or national ancestry in the terms, conditions or privileges 
of such accommodations or land or the acquisition thereof, or in the furnishing of 
facilities and services in connection therewith; or (c) to cause to be made any written 
or oral inquiry or record concerning the race, creed, color, national origin or national 
ancestry of the person seeking to rent or lease or buy any such accommodation or 
land; provided, however, that this subsection 7 shall not apply to the leasing of a 
single apartment or flat in a two family dwelling, the other occupancy unit of which 
is occupied by the owner as his residence." 

The State Advisory Council was consulted by the Commission on state-wide policies. 
Its major concerns of this year were studies of school situations; the organization of 
the Commission and the requests for an allocation of its budget. 

Council membership remains remarkably constant. Many present Council members 
can trace their service on their respective Councils back to the original Council meet- j 
ing. This devoted and continuing interest greatly gratifies the Commission. New I 



29 



members are also thoroughly appreciated and each year witnesses additions which is 
proof that the problem of discrimination and its evil results are a challenge to 
thoughtful civic-minded citizens and evoke their cooperation and support. 

This year Mr. Roger L. Putnam was welcomed back to the chairmanship of the 
Springfield Council. Springfield was the first Advisory Council and Mr. Putnam its 
first chairman. Mr. Archie Burack serves with him as vice-chairman. The Spring- 
field Coimcil and the Commission greatly regret the death of former chairman Charles 
V. Ryan who served as chairman for several years. The Council and Commission 
are happy that they can now work in close cooperation with the Springfield Human 
Relations Commission appointed by Mayor Charles V. Ryan, Jr. Since a budgetary 
allowance was not forthcoming to establish a branch office in Springfield to serve the 
western part of the State, an arrangement was made to have the Springfield City 
Clerk receive complaints and send them on to the MCAD if they came within its 
jurisdiction or to the Mayor's Human Relations Commission if it was not a matter 
dealing with discrimination in employment, education, public accommodations or 
housing. It seemed to both Commissions that such an arrangement would facilitate 
the filing of complaints but such has not been the result. This year the Commission 
again requested a budgetary allowance for a branch Springfield office. 

The Council and especially the Council chaimian has done much to promote in- 
terest and cooperation in the housing area. 

A study of apprentice training opportunities has been commenced by the MCAD 
but is not completed. 

Professor James McGregor Burns resigned his chairmanship of the Berkshire County 
Council because of his extremely demanding schedule. He will remain as a member 
of the Council. He is succeeded by Council member Nelson F. Hine. As a result 
of questions asked at the spring meeting of the Berkshire County Council the Com- 
mission's statement on housing was considerably revised after consultation with the 
Attorney General's office. It now reads: 

FAIR HOUSING LEGISLATION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

Public Housing 

No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any dis- 
crimination or segregation in public housing projects. 

Public Accommodations 

Rooming Houses, Lodging Houses, Guest Houses, Tourist Homes 

In regard to the renting of rooms if the place in which the room or rooms are 
located is open to the public and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general 
public for housing, lodging, board, rest or recreation, such a place irrespective of 
whether it is licensed or unlicensed and irrespective of the number of guests whether 
they are permanent or transient is covered by the law of public accommodations. 

Real Estate Offices 

A real estate office is a place of public accommodation. A licensed real estate agent 
or broker, therefore, may not discriminate against any person seeking his services 
because of the race, religious creed or color of such person. 

Private Housing 

Discrimination in Private Housing has been outlawed in Massachusetts in the fol- 
lowing situations: 

Rental of Apartments 

No person may be refused because of his race, religious creed, color or national 
origin the right to rent an apartment in any building containing three or more 
rental units. 



30 



Purchase of Homes 

No person may be refused because of race, religious creed, color or national origin 
the right to buy a home in any housing development containing ten (10) or more 
housing accommodations. 

Mortgage Loans 

As of June 7, 1960 no person engaged in the granting of any mortgage loan may 
discriminate on the basis of race, color, religious creed, national origin or ancestry 
against any person seeking such a loan. 

Injunctive Relief 

Chapter 570 of the Legislative Acts of 1961 authorizes a commissioner to seek in- 
junctive relief and outlines the procedure to be followed in petitioning the courts 
when seeking this relief against persons accused of imlawful discrimination in housing. 

The Council had designated this spring meeting to consider the situation in places 
of public accommodation. Was the atmosphere in the Berkshires as thoroughly wel- 
coming as Council members wished it to be? The Council members and guests 
attending the meeting were pleased with the reports that were given. Two important 
sub-committees have been appointed by Chairman Hine: The Liaison Committee to 
the Pittsfield Housing Authority Relative to the Urban Renewal Program consisting 
of Emil Metropole, Dr. Feland A. Nevers, Jay C. Rosenfeld, Samuel Sass and Frank 
Walker, and the Special Committee to Screen and Facilitate Complaints consisting of 
LaFayette Walker, Lincoln Cain and Samuel Sass. 

Coinicil programs have varied widely this year. The major interests of the Boston 
Coimcil were in Urban Redevelopment; a Study of Apprentice Training Oppor- 
timities and A Study of Public School Transfers in the Roxbuiy Area of Boston. A 
request was made for a study of the degree of integration in housing for the elderly. 

The Cape Cod Council again reports a marked increase in the recognition given to 
colored citizens. As one illustration, two prominent colored business men are now 
members of the Hyannis Board of Trade. Council members were very helpful in 
the reception and assistance given to "Reverse Freedom Riders." Schools, businesses, 
hotels and motels are reported as maintaining their very cooperative attitude. 

In New Bedford, radio stations have given fine support to the work of the Council. 
Spot radio announcements covering one or more phases of the work of the Com- 
mission and Council in eliminating discrimination in education, employment, public 
accommodations and housing were well received. Many complimentary comments 
were heard by Council members relative to an entire program devoted to MCAD and 
sponsored by an inter-church Council. 

Members of the North Shore Council asked that special resource material be pre- 
pared for them which might be used in talks directed to other groups of which they 
are members. Dr. Thomas J. Curtin, a charter member of the Council, has again 
agreed to revise the study unit for secondary schools "Discrimination — Danger to 
Democracy." The meeting early in the Council year with the Lynn and Salem Real 
Estate Boards was very satisfactory. 

A new sub-committee was appointed by Mr. Andrew B. Holmstrom, Chairman of 
the Worcester Council. Its function is to secure speaking engagements for Council 
members. Mrs. Daniel Farber accepted the chairmanship of this committee. Rever- 
end Michael P. Bafaro and Miss Anna Mays will serve with her. The Council re- 
quested that the housing survey of last year be continued. The Council wanted in- 
formation as to what degree of integration now obtains in Worcester housing. It is 
increasing its membership to include representatives of the building industry. The 
Worcester Council as usual has been very effective in preventing the occasion for 
complaints. 



31 



LIST OF COUNCIL MEMBERS 
State Advisory Council Membership 

John J. Desmond, Jr., Chairman, Former State Commissioner of Education 
Dr. Gordon W. Allport, Professor of Psychology, Harvard University 
Rt. Rev. Robert P. Barry, LL.D., St. Clement's Church, West Somerville 
Clarence Q. Berger, Dean of University Planning and Development, Brandeis 
University 

Charles C. Dasey, Retired Manager, Cunard White Star Line; Secretary Emeritus, 

Rotary Club of Boston 
Roland B. Gittelsohn, Rabbi, Temple Israel of Boston 

Dr. Owen B. Kieman, Commissioner of Education, Commonwealth of Massachu- 
setts 

Rt. Rev, Anson Phelps Stokes, Jr., Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese 

of Massachusetts 
Howard Thurman, Dean, Marsh Chapel, Boston University 

Regional Council Membership 

Berkshire County 

Nelson F. Hine. Chairman 

Bruno Aron. Proprietor, Sunnybank, Lenox 

Samuel E. Bloomberg, Attorney at Law 

Dr. James M. Burns, Williams College 

J. Robert Busch, President, Berkshire Hills Conference 

Lincoln S. Cain, Attorney at Law 

John E. Coughlin. Painters' Union, Local No. 94 

Bruce Crane, President, Crane Sc Company, Inc., Dalton 

Dennis J. Duffin, Lenox 

W. Rankin Furey, President, Berkshire Life Insurance Company 
David L. Gunn, Berkshire County Branch, NAACP 

G. B. Langford, Manager of Components Engineering, Ordnance Department, 

General Electric Company. Pittsfield 
Albert F. Litano, Local No. 225. lUE-CIO, Pittsfield 
Hans K. Maeder, Director, The Stockbridge School, Interlaken 
Emil Metropole, Realtor 
Feland A. Nevers, D.D.S. 

William J. Nolan, Sprague Electric Company, North Adams 

Arthur B. Phinney, Unitarian Church, Pittsfield 

Miss L. Alberta Pierce, NAACP 

Mrs. Henry N. Rollison, Pittsfield 

Jay C. Rosenfeld, Rosenfeld's, Inc., Pittsfield 

Dr. Edward J. Russell, Pittsfield 

Samuel Sass, Pittsfield 

Hon. Paul A. Tamburello, United States Commissioner 

Frank T. Walker, President. New England Regional Conference, NAACP 

LaFayette W. Walker, NAACP, Pittsfield 

B0St07l 

Carl J. Gilbert, Chairman, The Gillette Company, Chairman of the Board 

Norman H. Abbott, Boston University, Director of Placement 

Julius Bernstein, Executive Secretary, Mass. AFL-CIO, Civil Rights Committee; 

Regional Director, Jewish Labor Committee 
Frederic C. Church, Senior Partner, Boit, Dalton & Church 
John V. Connolly, Business Manager, Boston Photo Engravers' Union No. 3 
Hubert L. Connor, Director of Apprenticeship, Division of Apprentice Training, 

Mass. Department of Labor and Industries 



32 



Norris G. Da\is, Funeral Director, Davis Funeral Home 

John E, Dcady. Secretary-Treasurer, Boston Building and Construction Trades 
Council 

William H. Eastman, Second Vice President, John Hancock Mutual Life Insur- 
ance Company 

Stephen \V. Fardy, Executive Secretary, Boston Allied Printing Trades Council 
Harold D. Hodgkinson, Chairman, William Filcnc's Sons Company 
Ernest A. Johnson. Vice President, Massachusetts Building Congress 
James H. Mumma, Director of Personnel Administration, Raytheon Company, 
Lexington 

Thomas A. Pappas, President, C. Pappas Company, Inc. 

Leonard T. Peters, Executive Vice President. Peters Employment Service, Inc. 
Sidney R. Rabb, Chairman of the Board, Stop and Shop, Inc. 
Paul T. RothwcU, Chairman of the Board, Bay State Milling Company 
Arthur Seserman, Executive Vice President, Boston Branch National Metal Trades 
Association 

James J. Urban, Vice President, New England Telephone and Telegraph Co, 
F. Frank Vorenberg, President, Gilchrist Company 

Leslie E. Woods, Labor Advisor and Consultant, Raytheon Company, Lexington 

Cape Cod 

Dr. Lewis Paul Todd, Chairman, Editor, "Social Education" 

Dr. Irving H. Bartlett, Director, Cape Cod Community College, Hyannis 

James J. Bento, Attorney at Law 

Harvard H. Broadbent, Superintendent of Schools, Hyannis 

Anthony Casella, Chairman, Yarmouth School Committee 

MoBcrieff M. Cochran, Guidance Director, Nauset Regional High School 

Norman H, Cook, Executive Secretary, Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce 

Manuel Corey, Jr., Falmouth 

Charles A. Coyle, Executive Secretary, Massachusetts Hotel Association 
Rt. Rev. Leonard J. Daley, Pastor, St. Francis Xavier Church 
Miss Eugenia Fortes, Hyannis 

Mrs, Roma M. Freeman, Physical Education & Science Teacher, Barnstable Junior 

High School 
Joseph Gomes, Osterville 

Arthur C, Goode, Vice President, Retail Board of Trade, Hyannis 

Jack Graiver, Falmouth 

Harold L, Hayes, Jr,, Attorney at Law 

John T. Hough, Falmouth Publishing Company 

Mrs. John T. Hough, Falmouth 

Joseph Indio, Editor and Publisher, "Nantucket Town Crier" 
Charles W. Jacoby, President, Cape Cod Board of Realtors 
Allen F. Jones, Contractor, Barnstable 

James H. Kennedy, Employment Office Manager, Mass. Division of Employment 

Security, Plymouth 
John C. Linehan, Principal, Barnstable Junior High School 
Thomas F. McKeon, Executive Secretary, Hyannis Board of Trade 
Harry S. Merson, Superintendent of Schools, Falmouth 
Mrs. Harry S. Merson, Falmouth 

Ben Morton, Secretary, Chamber of Commerce, Martha's Vineyard 

Norman Nunes, Supervisor, Hood Milk Company 

Mrs. Lillian Olson, Treasurer, Hyannis Cooperative Bank 

John Pena, Contractor, Member State Board of Agriculture, West Falmouth 

Mrs. John Pena, Special Policewoman, Falmouth Police Department 

Howard Penn, Former President, Cape Cod Jaycees 

Rabbi Jerome Pine, Cape Cod Synagogue, Hyannis 

Thomas Roderick, Teen-Age group coordinator, Hyannis 

John Rosario, Member Junior Chamber of Commerce 



33 



Rev. Carl Fearing Schultz, D.D., The Federated Church of Hyannis 
Miss Mary G. Shea, "Dennis-Yarmouth Register," Yarmouthport 
Frank Simmons, Sr., Guest House owner, Falmouth 

Warren Sperl, Assistant Treasurer, Cape and Vineyard Electric Company 

Richard F. Tobin, Public Relations 

Mrs. Lewis Paul Todd, Truro 

Mi-s. Helen M. Webster, Realtor, West Yarmouth 

Harold H. Williams, Vice Chairman, State Advisory Commiiiee on Service to 
Youth 

Mrs. Minna Witt, Proprietor, Admiral Hotel, Hyannis 

New Bedford 

Fred W. Steele, Chairman, Legislative Agent and Counsel for Textile Mills of 
Massachusetts 

Mrs. Valentina N. Almeida, Principal Clerk, City Auditor's Office 
Joseph Baldwin, Employment Manager, Division of Employment Security, New 
Bedford 

Samuel Barnet, Special Justice, Third District Court of Bristol County 
Henry A. Bartkiewicz, Attorney at Law, Secretary, Polish Relief Committee of 
New Bedford 

James M. Buckley, Director of Adult Education, New Bedford Public Schools 
George E. Carignan, International Representative, Textile Workers' Union of 

America, AFL-CIO 
Joaquim A. Custodio, Lancashire Corporation, New Bedford 

Duncan A. Dottin, Social Worker, Division of Child Guardianship, New Bedford 

Rev, Edmund G. Francis, SS.CC, Pastor, St. Mary's Church, Fairhaven 

Rev. Edward A. Hailes, Union Baptist Church, New Bedford 

Mrs. William S. Holmes, Jr., Director and Past President, Council of Women's 

Organizations of Greater New Bedford 
Harold Hurwitz, Attorney at Law 

Hyman Krivoff, President and Treasurer, Dartmouth Finishing Corporation, New 
Bedford 

Miss Ruth B, McFadden, Former Superintendent of Schools, New Bedford 

George F. McGovern, Retired Works Manager, Revere Copper and Brass, Inc. 

Joao R. Rocha, Newspaper Publisher and Editor, "Portuguese Daily News" 

Marshall Sawyer, Teacher, Wareham High School 

Fermino J. Spencer, New Bedford School Department 

Mrs. Dorothy B. Stahre, Principal, New Bedford Public Schools 

Joseph A. Sylvia, Jr., Register of Deeds, New Bedford 

The Hon. August C. Taveira 

Alfred R. Thackeray, Executive Secretary, New Bedford Board of Commerce 
Mrs. Xenophon Thomas, New Bedford 

Philip F. Tripp, Executive Director, New Bedford Housing Authority 

William Joseph Winsper, III, Assistant Director of Guidance and Placement, 

New Bedford High School 
Mrs. William Wood, Secretary of New Bedford Board of Real Estate 
Donald Zeman, Attorney at Law 

Mrs. Anthony Zielinski, Women's Republican Club of New Bedford Executive 
Board 

Rabbi Bernard H. Ziskind, Tifererh Israel Synagogue 

North Shore 

Henry Kozlowski, Chairman, Treasurer, Jackson & Phillips, Inc. 
Alfred A. Albert, Real Estate Broker 

Anthony Athanas, President, Hawthorne Restaurants, Lynn-Swampscott 

Samuel P. Backman, Realtor, Chairman, Industrial Commission of Lynn 

Mrs. Mary Finn Berlyn, Supei-visor, Adult Civic Education, Lynn Public Schools 



34 



Louis L. Brin, Editorial Staff. The Jewish Advocate 

S. Matthew Carrington, Sr., President of Greater Lynn Council of Churches 
Thomas J. Curtin, Director, Division of Civic Education, Massachusetts Depart- 
ment of Education 
Mrs. Solomon M. Feldman, Jewish Community Federation 
Peter Gamage, Publisher, "Lynn Item" 
Abraham Glovsky, Senior Partner, Glovsky & Glovsky 
Mrs. Charles F. Haywood, Chief Librarian, Lynn Public Library 
Francis L. Keane, School Adjustment Counselor, Lynn Public Schools 
John M. Lilly, General Secretary, Lynn YMCA 
Herbert D. Marsh, President, Security Trust Company, Lynn 
Lawrence G. McGinn, Superintendent of Schools, Lynn School Department 
Mrs. Marcia L. Memmott, Director, Women's Division, Mass. Department of 

Commerce 
Mrs. William H. Nesbit, Lynn 

Theodore Regnante, Chairman, Board of Trustees of Lynn Public Library 
Rev. Edgar D. Romig, Rector, St. Stephen's Episcopal Church Lynn, President, 

Greater Lynn Council of Churches 
Armand J. St. Laurent, Funeral Director 
Rabbi Steven S. Schwarzschild, Temple Beth El, Lynn 
Rt. Rev. Cornelius T. H. Sherlock, Pastor, St. Mary's Parish, Lynn 
Dr. William D. Washington, Lynn 

William A. Welch, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Mass. Association of School 
Superintendents 

Springfield 

Roger L. Putnam, Chairman, Chairman of the Board, Package Machinery Com- 
pany 

Mrs. Richard B. Anderson, Public Affairs Committee, Community Council of 

Greater Springfield 
Archie Burack, Treasurer, Industrial Buildings Corporation, Chicopee 
Miss Clarace E. Gait, Head Psychiatric Social Worker, Child Guidance Clinic 

of Springfield 
George C, Gordon, Real Estate & Insurance 

Mrs. Richard J, Griffin, Jr., President of Civic Association Presidents 

Miss Alice L. Halligan, Executive Secretary, Springfield Adult Education Council 

Miss Olive K. Horrigan, Retired Director of Adult Education, Springfield School 

Department 
Raymond T. King, Attorney at Law 
Robert G. Little 

A. Benjamin Mapp, Executive Director, Urban League of Springfield 
Bernard H. McMahon, President, Springfield Five Cents Savings Bank 
Mrs. Roger L. Putnam, President of Catholic Scholarships for Negroes, Inc. 
Frederick B. Robinson, Director, Museum of Fine Arts, Springfield 
James J. Shea, President, Milton Bradley Company 

Dr. Hans Spiegel, Director, Community Tensions Center, Springfield College 
Charles ViVenzio, Financial Secretary, Local No. 202, AFL-CIO 
Mrs. Malcolm C. Webber 

Rev. D. Edward Wells, Pastor, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Springfield 

Worcester 

Andrew B. Holmstrom, Chairman, Consultant, Norton company 
Rev. Michael Paul Bafaro, Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester 
Mrs. Mary L. Boyd, NAACP Executive Board 

Lyscom A. Bruce, Retired Executive Secretary, Community Chest and Council 

of Greater Worcester 
Rev, Hubert C. Callaghan, S.J., Director, Institute of Industrial Relations, College 

of the Holy Cross 



35 



Miss S. Virginia Carrier, Executive Director, Worcester YWCA 

Daniel J. Casale, District Superintendent, Mass. Division of Employment Security 

Donald S. Donnelly, Chief Supervisor, Mass. Division of Employment Security 

Clayton T. Drown, Accounting Supervisor, Norton Company 

Mrs. Linwood M. Erskine, Member Worcester Area Committee on Aging 

Mrs. Daniel Farber 

The Hon. Joseph Goldberg, Central District Court, Worcester 
Dr. Ralph L. Holland, Executive Secretary, Greater Worcester Area Council of 
Churches 

Dr. Howard B. Jefferson, President, Clark University, Worcester 
Rabbi Joseph Klein, Temple Emanuel, Worcester 

Miss Clover G. Knowlton, Chairman, Commission on Christian Social Concerns, 

Wesley Methodist Church 
John S. Laws, Principal, Dix Street School, Worcester 

Miss Anna Mays, Life member of NAACP, New England Regional Conference 
Philip M. Morgan, President, Morgan Construction Company 
Mrs. Stanley W. Norwood, The Bancroft School 

Walter A. Olson, Executive Director, Family Service Organization of Worcester 
Harry W. Oswell, Honorary Vice-President, New England Regional NAACP 
Edson D. Phelps, Vice President, Slate Mutual Life Assurance Company of 
America 

Mrs. Thomas L. Porter, President, Massachusetts State Federation of Women's 
Clubs 

Mrs. Richard B. Roberts, League of Women Voters 

Mrs. Dorothy L. Salter, President, Salter Secretarial School 

Luther C. Small, Executive Director, Worcester Housing Authority 

Mrs. George E. Spence, Scholarship Chairman, Women's Service Club, YWCA 

Roy H. Stevens, District One, United Sieelworkers of America 

Dr. Joseph Weinreb, Director, Worcester Youth Guidance Center 

Advisory Council on Housing 
Mrs. Melnea A. Cass, President, Boston Branch NAACP 

George A. Coleman, President, Brokers Institute of the Greater Boston Real 
Estate Board 

Dr. Thomas J. Curtin, Director, Division of Civic Education, Massachusetts De- 
partment of Education 

Richard S. Dodd, VA & FHA Finance Manager, Campanelli Bros., Inc. 

Bertram A. Druker, Partner in the firm of John Druker & Son 

Maurice E. Frye, Jr., Street and Co., Inc.; President, Rental Housing Association 
of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board 

Alan Gartner, Chairman, Greater Boston CORE 

Marvin E. Gilmore, Jr., Realtor 

Alfred W. Halper, Home Builder 

Ray Hofford, Executive Vice President, Greater Boston Real Estate Board 
Rev. Wayne W. Horvath, Director, Department of Social Relations, Massachusetts 
Council of Churches 

M. Jacob Joslow, Executive Director, American Jewish Congress, N. E. Region 
Samuel Katz, Director, New England Region, American Jewish Committee 
Sol Kolack, Executive Director, New England Office, Anti-Defamation League of 
B'nai B'rith 

Rabbi Samuel I. Korff, Rabbinical Court of the Associated Synagogues 
Morris Kritzman, Vice Chairman, Mass. Committee on Discrimination in Housing 
John W. Kunhardt, Vice President, Hunneman & Co., Inc.; Director, Brokers 
Institute 

Luther Knight Macnair, Executive Secretary, Civil Liberties Union of Mass. 
Robert McPeck, Executive Vice President, Home Builders Association 
J. Westbrook McPherson, ACSW, Executive Director, Urban League of Greater 
Boston, Inc. 



36 



Edward C. Mendler, Jr., President of Fair Housing, Inc. 

Rev. John J. O'Brien, S.T.D., Chaplain, Catholic Interracial Council of Boston 
George B. Pettengill, Fair Housing Federation of Greater Boston 
L. Robert Rolde, Representing Rental Housing Association of Greater Boston 
Robert E. Segal, Executive Director, Jewish Community Council of Metropolitan 
Boston 

Milton H, Shaw, President, Greater Boston Real Estate Board 

Arthur L. Singer, Jr., Assistant Dean of Social Science, Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology 
Robert F. Smith, Builder 

Dr. Nancy St. John, Chairman, N. E. Community Relations Committee, American 

Friends Service Committee 
Mrs. Muriel S. Snowden, Co-Director, Freedom House, Inc. 
A. J. Tambone, President, A. J. Tambone, Inc., Reators 

Mrs. George S. Tattan, Supervisor of Social Service, Division of Immigration 

and Americanization 
William J. White, Managing Director, Brokers Institute of Greater Boston Real 

Estate Board 

Walter K. Winchester, Vice President, First Realty Company of Boston 
Raymond H. Young, Attorney at Law 



87 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 
November 10, 1946 to December 31, 1962 

Complaints: 

Initiated and received 2319 

Closed after formal hearing 7 

Closed after investigation and conference 1291 

Closed for lack of probable cause 777 

Closed for lack of jurisdiction 86 

Withdrawn 107 

Pending investigation and conference 51 

Noticed for formal hearing 

Investi(;ations Without Complaint: 

Initiated by the Commission 889 

Closed after investigation and conference 674 

Closed for lack of probable cause 198 

Transferred to complaint 8 

Pending investigation and conference 9 

Regulating and Supervising Age Amendment: 

Initiated by the Commission 1017 

Closed after investigation and conference 953 

Closed for lack of probable cause 44 

Pending investigation and conference 20 

TOTAL 4225 

Nature of Complaints and Investigations: 

Based upon alleged color discrimination 1653 

Based upon alleged religious discrimination 381 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of race 66 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of national origin 441 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of ancestry 50 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of age 1634 

Type of Complaints and Investigations: 

Against employers 3154 

Against employment agencies 144 

Against Labor unions 37 

Others 67 

Public Accommodations 353 

Newspaper Advertising 145 

Public Housing 17 

Publicly Assisted Housing 28 

Private Housing 254 

iair Educational Practices 26 



38 



CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES 
ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMISSION 

The FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE LAW was enacted as Chapter 151B of 
the General Laws by Chapter 368 of the Acts of 1946; amended by Chapter 424 of 
the Acts of 1947 relative to inquiries into whether an applicant for employment or 
union membership is a veteran or a citizen; further amended by Chapter 411 of the 
Acts of 1948 relative to civil service coverage of certain commission employees; further 
amended by Chapter 479 of the Acts of 1950 changing the name of the Fair Employ- 
ment Practice Commission to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 
and further defining its powers and duties; further amended by Chapter 697 of the 
Acts of 1950 and Chapter 627 of the Acts of 1962 relative to employment discrimina- 
tion because of age; further amended by Chapter 588 of the Acts of 1951 relative to 
compensation of members of the Commission; further amended by Chapter 274 of 
the Acts of 1955 relative to discrimination by bonding companies. 

The FAIR EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES LAW was enacted by Chapter 151C of the 
General Laws by Chapter 726 of the Acts of 1949; amended by Chapter 334 of the 
Acts of 1956 giving jurisdiction over the law to the Massachusetts Commission Against 
Discrimination. 

Discrimination in PUBLIC HOUSING, made illegal by Chapter 121, Section 26FF 
of the General Laws, was further defined to include segregation, and jurisdiction over 
complaints was given to the MCAD by Chapter 479 of the Acts of 1950. 

The PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAW (Chapter 272, Section 92A and Section 
98 of the General Laws) was placed under the jurisdiction of the MCAD by Chapter 
479 of the Acts of 1950; amended by Chapter 437 of the Acts of 1953 further defining 
a place of public accommodation. 

The PUBLICLY ASSISTED HOUSING LAW was enacted as an amendment to the 
fair employment practice law by Chapter 426 of the Acts of 1957. 

The PRIVATE HOUSING LAW was enacted as an amendment to the fair employ- 
ment practice law by Chapter 239 of the Acts of 1959; further amended by Chapter 
163 of the Acts of 1960 forbidding discrimination in the granting of mortgage loans. 

The PRIVATE HOUSING section of the law was amended by Chapter 128 of the 
Acts of 1961 to include the sale or negotiation to sell housing accommodations as 
well as giving the Commission jurisdiction over licensed real estate brokers. 

The INJUNCTIVE RELIEF LAW was enacted as an amendment to the fair prac- 
tices statute bv Chapter 570 of the Acts of 1961. 



I 



Public Document 



No. 163 




EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT ^^ l/ / -/^z 

ANNUAL REPORT 

of the 

Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination. 

January 1, 1963 to December 31, 1963 



Mildred H. Mahoney, Chairman 

Ruth M. Batson, Commissioner 

Ben G. Sfi\PiRo^ Commissioner. 

Malcolm C. Webber, Commissioner 

Walter H. Nolan^ Executive Secretary 

' ' ' ^ • « 

41 Tremont Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



^ VunLICATlON OF THIS DOCUMENT APPROVED BY ALFRED C. HOLLAND, STATE PURCHASING ACENT 

SM-6-64-938357 Estimated Cost Per Copy: $.147 



2 



CONTENTS 

Page 

INTRODUCTION V Tg JiMldi^ BQSEQ^ 

ADDITIONS TO THE COMMISSION . ^ ^F^* ^ 

SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTIVITIES . \ . • • ^ 

OPERATION OF THE LAW ^ . . . 4 

SCOPE OF THE LAW . 5 

COMPLAINT HISTORIES 10 

Fair Housing 10 

Fair Employment 11 

Public Accommodations 11 

PUBLIC HEARINGS 12 

AGREEMENT REACHED BY THE MCAD— NAACP— CORE 

AND THE BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 13 

HOUSING 14 

Housing Law of 1963 14 

Public Housing Survey Statistics . , 22 

PRESENT LAWS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION 

AND THEIR ADMINISTRATION 27 

LEGISLATION RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION .... 28 

COUNCIL ACTIVITIES 29 

LISTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS 32 

REPRESENTATIVE SURVEYS SPONSORED LY MCAD 37 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY . , 39 



"XG !■ 7 

INTRODUCTION u 

Housing is the most tense and sensitive area in which the Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination operates. Because of this we are devoting a very major portion 
of this report to that subject. 

It has proved a thorny problem, but we have been fortunate in having the assistance 
of many individuals and organizations. 

The highlight of this year has been the passage of Senate Bill S-350 now Chapter 197 
of the Acts of 1963. This extension of already existing housing laws, which have been 
referred to as the most powerful in the country, adds greatly to that power and cover- 
age. It eliminates weaknesses in the previous laws and covers all housing accommo- 
dations with the exception of owner-occupied two-family buildings. 

The sequence of housing laws shows a steady increase in the jurisdiction assigned 
to the Commission by the Legislature. The Commission progressed from laws pertain- 
ing to public housing, to housing wholely or partially supported by public money, to 
housing which might be entirely privately financed and then in 1963 to this inclusive 
law which covers all housing offered to the public for sale or rental with the exception 
of the two family house in which the owner lives in one part. 

During a test case in 1962 in a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 
the following statement was made: 

"... neither property rights nor contract rights are absolute; for the government 
cannot exist if the citizen may, at his will, use his property to the detriment of his 
fellows or exercise his freedom of contract to work them harm. Equally fundamental 
with the private right is that of the public to regulate it in the common interest." 

This decision, basically, has been the belief held throughout the 18 year history of 
the Commission. 

Great progress has been made in the struggle against discrimination. This new 
housing law will do much toward eliminating a painful process for many persons in 
the Commonwealth. 

But no law can do this job alone. The problem can be greatly helped by law, but 
it is both a legal and moral problem and the community as a whole must realize its 
importance and cooperate in its solution. 



ADDITIONS TO THE COMMISSION 

This year important changes have been made in the Commission. The number of 
Commissioners has been increased from three to four with the appointment by Gover- 
nor Peaibody on December 4, 1963, of Mrs. Ruth M. Batson who succeeds Mr. Chester 
N. Gibbs, and Mr. Malcolm C. Webber, The terms of Commission members has also 
been increased from three to four years. 

Commissioner Webber is to be in charge of the newly created Springfield office 
which will have as its special responsibility the Western part of the State from Spring- 
field where it is located and through the Berkshire County Area. 

There has also been established a new position of Director of Research. As yet no 
appointment has been made to that position. 

SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTIVITIES 

The eighteenth annual report includes the period from 1 Januarv 1963 to 31 Decem- 
ber 1963. 

The Commission had before it for resolution 359 matters involving discrimination 
based on race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry in the field of 
employment and discrimination based on race, color, creed, or national origin in 
housing, places of public accommodations and admissions to educational institutions. 

Staff members of the Commission inteniew^ed 495 employers throughout the Com- 
monwealth. As part of the interview the employer was acquainted with the provisions 
of the fair practices statute and his obligation under them. In addition, the employer 
was briefed on the Commission's ruling and interpretation of the law. 



4 



A review of the application for employment form used by the employer as well ; 
his hiring fK>licies was made in each instance. The official poster of the Commissic 
(Form CAD-5) was placed on display in a conspicuous place on the premises ; 
required by law. 

Of the 495 employers interviewed 108 were found to be using employment appli- 
cation forms which did not conform to the law. Nineteen employers inquired into 
and recorded the national origin of the applicant. The remaining employers, eighty- 
nine in number, made pre-employment inquiries into the age of the applicant. All 
violations were eliminated and revised employment application forms put into use. 

The advertising material used by hotels, motels, guest houses and tourist homes 
were screened for possible violations of the Public Accommodations statute, chapter 272, 
section 92A of the General Laws. 1,153 advertising brochures were screened at the 
beginning of the 1963 vacation season. Not one violation was found. 

A study of the tenant selection program and policy of twenty-seven Public Housing 
Authorities was made to determine the requirement of equal opportunity for public 
housing regardless of the applicants' race, color, creed, or religion. One Public Housing 
Authority was found to be recording the race of applicants. The authority was 
notified to end the practice forthwith and immediately did so. 

As part of the study the number and names of the completed housing developments 
within each Authority's control and management were recorded as well as the number 
of units contemplated being built within the ensuing year. All forms and records 
made out by and for applicants for housing were examined and lastly, the census 
figures of the non-white population in each development was obtained. These figures 
are reported in the section of this report entitled, Public Housing Survey Statistics. 

Commission staff members surveyed thirty-eight new private housing developments 
in twenty communities within the Commonwealth. Real estate brokers and the builders 
were informed of the provisions of the fair housing statute. 

In the Pittsfield area a survey of the hiring policy and employmemt pattern was 
made of 216 employers. 

The admissions policy of twenty-seven Springfield Nursing Homes was studied with 
no apparent unlawful discriminatory practices revealed. 

Seven newly chartered educational institutions opened during 1963. The ofl&cials 
especially the admissions officers, were instructed in the provisions of the fair educa- 
tional practices law. 

Through the cooperation of the Board of Registration of Real Estate Brokers and 
Salesmen, 35 thousand copies of the Commission pamphlet, "A Guide To The Fair 
Housing Law" are being distributed at the rate of 2,000 per month. A guide is mailed 
out with each license renewal. 

1,146 persons visited the office of the Commission to make inquiries concerning their 
rights or obligations under the provisions of the civil rights statutes. 

The Commission members and staff conducted forty-four conferences and addressed 
fifty-five business, civic and social organizations. 

As a public service on behalf of the Commission there was displayed 500 car cards 
on the vehicles operated by the Metrofwlitan Transit Authority. The car cards were 
displayed as part of a program to alert the public to its rights under the Fair Housing 
Practices Act. 

OPERATION OF THE LAW 

1. Enforcing the Law 

When a complaint is brought by an individual or his attorney, it is assigned to a 
commissioner who, with the assistance of the staff, conducts an investigation to deter- 
mine whether probable cause exists for crediting the statements appearing in the 
complaint. If probable cause is found to exist, the investigating commissioner en- 
deavors to eliminate the unlawful practice complained of by conference, conciliation 
and persuasion, that is, through frank discussion with the parties concerned. If 
necessary, the Commission has the power to subpoena. If the matter cannot be set- 
tled in the conference period it is referred to the other two commissioners for a 
hearing which is public. After such a hearing the Commission may issue orders 
which may be carried out by the Superior Court. 



5 



2. Investigations 

An investigation deals with a situation which does not begin with a formal com- 
plaint from an individual, but it must relate to instances where trouble is manifest 
and can be traced to the factors of race, religious creed, national origin, age or ances- 
try and so is of concern to the Commission and community. The Commission recog- 
nizes what it considers to be a danger signal and tries to straighten out the matter 
in a cooperative manner. The information which triggers the investigation may come 
from a reputable source or agency or may be an incident involving an organization 
exempted from the provisions of the statutes. Under such circumstances the Com- 
mission invites people to a conference in an attempt to resolve the situation. 

3. Education 

The educational program attempts through Council activities, distribution of the 
Unit of Study, "Discrimination — Danger to Democracy," conferences, speeches, sur- 
veys and the distribution of printed material to acquaint the general community 
with the work of the Commission to the end that public understanding, sympathy 
and support may be stimulated and the services given by the Commission may be 
made clear. 

SCOPE OF THE LAW 

The following is a list of the questions the Commission is most frequently asked 
concerning the scope of the law. It hopes the answers will serve to inform the inhabi- 
tants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of their rights, privileges and duties 
under the various sections of the law: 

What is the Purpose of the Fair Employment Practice Law? 

Its purpose is to prevent and eliminate practices of discrimination in employment 
because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry. 

When Did the Law Go Into Effect? 
August 21, 1946, 

Who Administers the Law? 

Four Commissioners, appointed by the Governor. 

What Is the Commission Empowered to Do? 

It is empowered to receive, investigate and pass upon complaints alleging discrimi- 
nation in employment because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, age 
or ancestry; to hold hearings and subpK)ena witnesses. 

Does the Fair Employment Practice Law Apply Only to Hiring? 

No, it applies also to discharge, transfer, promotion, terms and privileges of 
employment, including unfair working conditions such as separation of facilities 
and segregation in emplo^Tnent. 

Are All Employers Subject to the Law? 
All employers with six or more employees, including the state and local govern- 
ments, are subject to the law. The law does not apply to clubs which are exclu- 
sively social or to fraternal, charitable, educational or religious associations which 
are not organized for private profit; nor does the law apply to any individual 
employed by his parents, spouse or children or engaged in domestic service. 

How Does the Law Effect Employment Agencies? 
It is unlawful for an employment agency: 

1. To ask questions before employment or to make any statement to a prospec- 
tive employer concerning the race, color, religious creed, national origin, age 
or ancestry of an applicant, 

2. To place advertisements for help or use application blanks which directly or 
indirectly express any limitation upon employment because of race, color, 
religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry of an applicant, 

3. To accept or process job orders from employers which limit or specify the 
race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry of an applicant. 



6 



What Questions May Not Be Asked of an Applicant for Employment? 
Questions may not be asked concerning: 
Birthplace or that of relatives. 
Religious creed. 
Color or complexion. 
Lineage or national origin. 

Places of residence of relatives of the applicant or their places of business out- 
side of the United States. 
Military experience in the service of a foreign country. 

Organizations of which the applicant is a member if their names indicate 

religion, race, national origin or ancestry. 
Age. 

Citizenship, which would indicate whether the applicant is naturalized or 
native-born; but the applicant may be asked if he is a citizen. 

May an Applicant Be Asked to Produce Military Discharge Papers, Naturalization 
Papers or a Birth Certificate Prior to Employment? 
No 

May a Photograph Be Required Prior to Employment? 
No. 

Does the Law Tell an Employer Whom to Hire? 
No, but it does declare it to be unlawful for an employer to refuse to employ, or to 
discharge from employment any individual because of race, color, religious creed, 
national origin, age or ancestry. It does not restrict an employer from establishing 
occupational qualifications provided that they are applied equally to ail persons. 

May Job Qualifications Include Personality and Appearance? 

Yes, depending on the job. But appearance cannot include color or racial 
characteristics. 

Suppose an Employer Is Willing to Hire Qualified Minority Group W^orkers But 

Cannot Because of Discriminatory Labor Union Practice? 

Complaints may be filed against labor organizations, since these organizations are 
subject to the Fair Employment Practice Law, when persons are denied full 
membership rights because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or 
ancestry. 

Suppose an Employer Desires to Hire Qualified Minority Group Members But Fears 

an Unfavorable Reaction From His Other Employees? 

A clear stand by tihe employer indicating that he intends to comply with the law 
and hire the most qualified workers regardless of their race, color, religious creed, 
national origin, age or ancestry will usually suffice. However, the provisions of the 
Fair Employment Practice Law can also be invoked against employees attempting 
to obstruct the purposes of the law. 

Does the Fair Employment Practices Law Give Minority Group Members Any Special 

Privileges In Obtaining Employment? 

No, the purpose of the law is to afford all persons equal opportunities in employ- 
ment regardless of race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry with 
the qualifications of the applicants being the sole test in selecting employees. 

If I File a Complaint Against My Employer, Might This Action Cause Me to Lose 
My Job Or to Be Otherwise Discriminated Against By Him? 

No, the law makes it a violation to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate 

against any person because he has filed a complaint. 

How Does the Law Affect Employees On the Job? 

It requires that wages, hours, use of rest room and restaurant facilities, etc., be 
afforded equally to all employees regardless of race, color, religious creed, national 
origin, age or ancestry. 



7 



Who May File a Complaint With the Commission? 
Any person claiming to be aggrieved because of an alleged unlawful practice; the 
Attoney General of the Commonwealth; an employer when his employees, or some 
of them, refuse or threaten to refuse to comply with the provisions of the law. 
The Commission itself may file a complaint whenever it has reason to believe any 
person has been or is engaging in an unlawful practice. 

What Is Meant By "An Aggrieved Person"? 

An aggrieved person is one who believes that his legal rights have been invaded 
because of discrimination in employment, education, public accommodations or 
housing. 

How May a Complaint Be Filed? 

Anyone wishing to file a complaint on charges of discrimination because of race, 
color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry must make a complaint in 
person or in writing which must be notarized. Upon request the staff of the 
Commission will assist a person in recording a complaint. 

Where Should a Complaint Be Filed? 

At the offices of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 41 Tremont 
Street, Boston or at the Springfield office of the Commission 1570 Main Street, 
Springfield. 

Is There Any Time Limit For the Filing Of a Complaint? 

Yes, a complaint must be filed within six months after alleged act of discrimination. 

What Happens To a Complaint After It Is Filed? 

It is assigned to a commissioner who, with the assistance of the staff, conducts an 
investigation to determine whether probable cause exists for crediting the state- 
ments appearing in the complaint. 

What Does "Probable Cause" Mean? 

That there is credible evidence warranting a belief that discrimination may have 
been practiced. 

If Probable Cause Is Found to Exist, What Then? 

The Investigating Commissioner endeavors to eliminate the unlawful practice 
complained of by conference, conciliation and persuasion, that is, through frank 
discussion with the parties concerned. 

If Conference, Conciliation and Persuasion Prove Unsuccessful, What Further Steps 
May Be Taken? 

A formal hearing may then be ordered before the other three Commissioners. 
The Investigating Commissioner can now appear only as a witness, and the testi- 
mony taken at this hearing shall be under oath. 

How Is a Final Order of the Commission Enforced? 

The Commission may obtain in the Superior Court an order for the enforcement 
of its decision. 

Was the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination Always Known By This 
Name? 

No. From 1946 to 1950 the Commission was known as the, Fair Employment 
Practice Commission. 

Why Was the Name of the Commission Changed in 1950? 

The name of the Commission was changed because of certain amendments which 
increased the duties of the Commission and broadened the scope of the original law. 

What Were These Amendments to the Original Fair Employment Practice Law? 
The amendments were three in number: 

1. The age amendment; 

2. The public accommodations amendment; 

3. The public housing amendment. 



8 



What Is the Age Amendment? 

The age amendment prohibits discrimination in employment solely because of age. 
Age is defined in the law as being between the 45th and 65th birthday. 

What Is the Public Accommodations Amendment? 

This amendment prohibits the making of any distinction, discrimination or re- 
striction on account of religion, color, national origin or race relative to the 
admission of any person to, or his treatment in, any place of public accommodation, 
resort or amusement. 

What Is the Private Housing Amendment? 

This amendment provides that there shall be no discrimination nor segregation 
in public housing because of race, color, creed, or religion. 

Must There Be an Official Notice of the Commission Posted on the Premises? 

Yes. Every employer, employment agency, real estate agency, rental office and 
labor union subject to this law shall post in a conspicuous place or places on his 
premises a notice prepared by the Commission and called the Summary of the Law, 
which sets forth excerpts of the law and such other relevant information which 
the Commission deems necessary to explain the law. 

Any employer, employment agency, real estate agency, rental office or labor union 
refusing to comply with the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine 
of not less than $10.00 nor more than 3100.00. 

Is There a Regulation Concerning the Display of an Official Poster In a Place Of 

Public Accommodation? 
At a public hearing held on May 21, 1959 the Commission adopted a regulation 
ordering all places of public accommodations to display conspicuously a Public 
Accommodations poster. 

Has There Been Any Added Jurisdiction Given the MCAD Since the Amendments 
of 1950? 

Yes. In 1955 the Fair Employment Practice Act was amended. In 1956 the 
administration of the Fair Educational Practices Law was transferred from the 
Department of Education to the MCAD. In 1957 the Publicly Assisted Housing 
Law was enacted. In 1959 the Private Housing Law was passed. 

W^hat Does the 1955 Amendment Provide? 

No person engaged in insurance or the bonding business may make inquiry or 
record of any information relating to the race, color, religious creed, national 
origin or ancestry of a person to be bonded. 

What Does the Fair Educational Practices Law Cover? 

It covers all educational institutions in the state with the possible exception of 
religious institutions, and then only in regard to religion. 

W^hat Does It Declare? 

It declares the policy of the Commonwealth to be the American ideal of equality 
of opportunity requiring that students, otherwise qualified, be admitted to edu- 
cational institutions without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. 

Note: Following statements in small print have been superseded by the provisions of the Fair 
Housing Amendment of 1963 as embodied in Chapter 197 of the Acts of 1963. This amendment 
extended the scope of the law to include all housing accommodations except an owner-occupied, 
two-family dwelling. 

What Is The Purpose of the Publicly Assisted Housing Law? 

The prevention and elimination of discrimination because of race, creed, color or national origin 
in the sale, rental or lease of private housing accommodations which are publicly assisted. 

What Are Some Examples of Housing Which is Publicly Assisted? 

1. Housing which is tax exempt in whole or in part. 

2. Housing constructed under urban renewal programs. 

3. Housing accommodations located in a multiple dwelling insured by the Federal Housing 
Administration or some other agency of the Federal or State Government. 

4. Housing accommodations located in a development of ten or more contiguous units, the con- 
struction of which has been insured by a governmental agency or which are offered for sale 
under the FHA or VA mortgage insurance programs. 



9 



What Is A Multiple Dwelling? 

A dwelling which is occupied as the residence or home of three or more families living inde- 
pendently of each other. 

Is There a Later Amendment Concerning Housing? 

Yes. Chapter 239 of the Legislative Acts of 1959 broadened the scope of existing legislation in 
that the law now covers private housing consisting of multiple dwellings of three or more or ten 
or more houses contiguously located. 

What Types of Housing Are Covered By The New Law? 

The following types of private housing are covered: apartment houses, housing developments 
consisting of ten or more houses and single houses if the house has been built on "one of ten 
or more lots of a tract whose plan has been submitted to a planning board as required by 
THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW." 

What Is An Unfair Practice Under the Law? 
An unfair practice is: 

a. to refuse to rent, lease or sell to any person or group of persons because of race, creed, 
color or national origin housing covered by the law; 

b. to discriminate against any person because of his race, creed, color or national origin in 
the terras, conditions or privileges of such housing or in the furnishing of facilities or 
services in connection therewith; or 

c. to cause to be made any written or oral inquiry or record concerning the race, creed, 
color or national origin of a person seeking to buy, rent or lease any such housing. 

What Is the Attorney General's Ruling Concerning Real Estate Agencies? 

On November 24, 1959 Attorney General Edward J. McCorraack, Jr. ruled that real estate 
agencies are places of public accommodation and are subject to the provisions of Chapter 272, 
Section 98 of the General Laws. 

What Constitutes a Violation By a Real Estate Agency? 

The ruling declared that it is a violation for a real estate agency to refuse to offer its services 
to any person or to refuse to accommodate any person as a client because of race, creed, color 
or national origin. 

Are Licensed Real Estate Brokers Subject to the Provisions of the Fair Housing Law? 

Yes. Chapter 128 of the Legislative Acts of 1961 amended General Laws Chapter 151B, 
section 4, subsection 6 to include licensed real estate brokers. 

Who Are Prohibited From Employing Unfair Practices Under the Law? 

Owners, lessees, sublessees, licensed real estate brokers, assignees or managing agents or 
other persons having the right of ownership or possession of right to rent or lease, or sell, 
or negotiate for the sale of the housing accommodations or any agent or employee of such 
persons. 

ON PAGE 19 YOU WILL FIND CHAPTER 197 OF THE ACTS OF 1963 WHICH 
INCLUDES AND GREATLY INCREASES THE SCOPE OF FAIR HOUSING. ON 
PAGE 20 YOU WILL ALSO NOTE THE "GUIDE" TO CHAPTER 197 OF THE ACTS 
OF 1963. 

What Is the Amendment Concerning Mortgage Loans? 

Chapter 15 IB, section 4, subsection 3B of the General Laws, as amended by 
Chapter 163 of the Legislative Acts of 1960, prohibits any person engaged in the 
business of granting mortgage loans to discrimiate against any person in the 
granting of any mortgage loan, including but not limited to the interest rate, 
terms or duration of such mortgage loan, because of his race, color, religious creed, 
national origin, or ancestry. 

Can the Commission Obtain Injunctive Relief Restraining the Sale, Rental or Lease 
of the Housing Accommodation Involved in a Complaint Before It? 

Yes. Chapter 570 of the Legislative Acts of 1961 amended Chapter 15 IB, section 5 
of the General Laws to outline the procedure to be taken by an individual 
commissioner to petition the Courts for a restraining order which will provide 
injunctive relief. Such an injunction can only be issued by the Court. ' 

When May the Court Be Petitioned to Grant Such a Restraining Order? 

As soon as a determination of probable cause has been made that the allegations 
of the complaint have been substantiated. 

Provided Injunctive Relief Is Granted How Does This Help the Complainant? 
The owner of the housing accommodations is restrained from renting, leasing or 
selling the housing accommodations to any other than the complainant pending 
the final determination of the Commission in the matter. 

What Additional Duties Are Given the Commission? 

It is given the power to create advisory agencies and conciliation councils and as 
is stated in the Law: 



10 



"The Commission may empower them to study the problem of discrimination in 
order to foster through community effort . . . good will, cooperation and con- 
ciliation among the groups and elements of the population of the Commonwealth 
. . . and make recommendations to the Commission for the development of policies 
. . . and for programs of formal and informal education which the Commission may 
recommend to the appropriate state agency." 

COMPLAINT HISTORIES 

Fair Housing 

The following is an account of a complaint which was given a great deal of publicity 
due to a picket line being set in the Town in whidh the incident took place. 

On Thursday morning, 29 August 1963, at approximately 11:00 A.M., lihe Executive 
Secretary to the Commission received a telephone call from a member of a local fair 
housing committee informing him of an alleged violation of the housing section of 
the fair practices statute. 

The fair housing committeeman reported that a Foreign Affairs officer, employed 
by the State Department, and recently returned from Africa, had been denied the 
rental of a house because of his color. He had been told that the housing accommoda- 
tion had been rented although a White couple, testing the situation, were told, subse- 
quent to his inquiry, that the house was available and had not been rented. 

The aggrieved party was in Washington, D. C, at the time of the above referenced 
telephone call and would not be available to make out a verified complaint. It was 
feared that before the State Department officer could return the housing accommoda- 
tions would be reiited. The question was then posed, what could the Commission do? 

The committeeman was advised to prepare an affidavit to include his direct knowl- 
edge of the incident, for he was one of the testers. 

At about 3:00 P.M., the same day the affidavit was brought to the Commission office. 

It is Commission policy that no one Commissioner can initiate a complaint in the 
name of the Commission, it may only be done by a majority vote. 

One Commissioner was present in the office of the Commission and his vote was 
obtained. 

A telephone call was made to another Commissioner who gave his vote after the 
contents were read to him. 

A complaint was initiated in the name of the Commission and docketed. The In- 
vestigating Commissioner was named and a field representative assigned to investigate 
the allegations of the affidavit. 

On Friday morning, 30 August 1963, the field representative reported that the 
respondent was out of the state and would not return until after Labor Day. 

A telegram was sent to the respondent making known that the field representative 
would be at his place of business on Tuesday, 3 September 1963, at 9:00 A.M., to 
investigate an alleged violation of the fair practices statute. 

On Tuesday, 3 September 1963, at about 10:00 AjM., the field representative re- 
ported that respondent had not kept the appointment and that a respondent employee 
had professed to have no knowledge of the whereabouts of his employer. 

At approximately 11:00 A.M., another member of the same local fair housing com- 
mittee called the Commission and reported seeing respondent's car in town. 

The Executive Secretary conferred with the Investigating Commissioner and was 
instructed to issue a subpoena for respondent's appearance in the Commission office 
on Thursday, 5 September 1963, at 11:00 A.M. 

Respondent and his attorney answered the summons and presented a lease signed 
by another party. 

Further investigation revealed that the individual who had signed the lease was 
employed by one of respondent's sub-contractors and that his weekly salary was be- 
lieved not to be sufficient to carry the rental of this particular housing accommodation. 

The Investigating Commissioner found probable cause and began his endeavors to 
conciliate the matter. 

Respondent's attorney asked for a continuance until the following morning. 

On Friday, 6 September 1963, at 10:00 A.M., the respondent and his legal counsel 
conferred with Investigating Commissioner and agreed to rent the housing accommo- 



11 



dation to the State Department employee who was not scheduled to return to Massa- 
chusetts until the following day. 

A standard lease form was obtained from a near-by stationers store, filled out by 
respondent, and turned over to the Commission, who in turn saw to it that the 
aggrieved party signed it the following day. 

The State Department employee and his family moved into the housing accommo- 
dation tlie following week and at last accounts has made many friends among his 
neighbors. (Complaint No. PrH V-59-C) 

Fair Employment 

On 29 July 1963, a woman filed a complaint, alleging unlaw^ful discrimination in 
employment, based on color. 

The day previous, on a Sunday, complainant had observed a classified help-wanted 
advertisement which read as follows: "Factory — Women who are mechanically inclined 
and like to work on machines. . . . Do not phone, please — shifts 3 to 11 p.m. and 
11 to 7 p.m." 

Complainant was the first one to apply at the particular factory. She recognized it 
as a factory to w^hich she had applied previously. The advertisement had carried no 
name only a street address. 

Complainant was interviewed by the personnel manager who was the same individual 
with whom she had talked on a previous occasion in March 1963. He requested that 
she fill out an application form and informed her that she would be called. 

The next person to see the personnel manager was white. She did not come back 
from her interview. 

The next applicant was colored. She reported receiving the same statements as 
complainant, that respondent w^ould call. 

The next applicant was also colored. She returned to the waiting room and reported 
receiving the same information. 

The fourth applicant was white. She did not return to the waiting room. 

Complainant alleged that respondent frequently advertised for help. This was her 
second response to the respondent's help wanted advertisement. She, therefore, be- 
lieved that she had been denied employment because of her color and so charged. 

Investigation revealed that complainant was not given equal consideration each 
time she had applied. 

Respondent, when apprised of the complaint, followed through on a reference check 
and reported a previous employer would not recommend rehiring complainant for 
his plant. 

Further investigation revealed that the bad reference from the previous employer 
was motivated by an exercise of an individual's prejudice against colored and when 
brought to the attention of management immediate correction was made. 

Respondent agreed to re-interview which resulted in an offer of emplovment. 
(Complaint No. XVIII-50-C) 

Public Accommodations 

On 24 October 1963 complainant, a Negro, alleged that he entered a down-town 
Boston barber shop for the purpose of obtaining a haircut. The time was approxi- 
mately 12:20 P.M. 

According to the complainant all of the barbers were busy so he took a chair to w-ait 
his turn. As he seated himself one of the barbers approached and asked if he had an 
appointment. When he answered in the negative he was told that haircuts were 
given only by appointment and that all of the barbers were pretty well booked up. 

Complainant left but returned shortly thereafter and asked for an appointment. He 
was told that the earliest appointment would be for the following afternoon, at 
3:30 P.M., and only if there had been a cancellation. 

After leaving the barber shop for the second time complainant met a Caucasian 
friend of his, who, upon hearing the details of the incident, entered the barber shop. 
The three barbers were busy but after asking w^hen he could obtain a haircut he was 
told to return after lunch. This was approximately ten minutes after the complainant 
had been told that the barbers Avere all booked up. 



12 



Complainant, therefore charged respondent with unequal treatment and denial of 
service because of color in a place of public accommodations. 

The investigation substantiated the allegations contained in the complaint. 

The matter was satisfactorily adjusted by the respondent sending a letter of apology 
to the complainant; inviting him to avail himself of the services of the establishment; 
submitting a statement of policy of conformance with the provisions of the public 
accommodations statute, and displaying a public accommodations poster in a con- 
spicuous place on the premises. (Complaint No. PXIII-23-C) 

PUBLIC HEARINGS 

There were three pulblic hearings held during 1963 and each involved the matter of 
denial of housing accommodations because of the color of the applicants. 

The third hearing resulted in a cease and desist order as well as an order to rent 
the housing accommodation to the complainant. 

Two of the complaints involved the same respondent and are presently before the 
Suffolk County Superior Court for enforcement of the Final Order of the Commission. 
The Commission order follows. 

The Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of the Commission which is 
reproduced belmv is before the Courts for enforcement: 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION on relation of 
ALMA WILLIAMS, Complainant 

vs. 

GEORGE B. WATTENDORF, Respondent 

(Executive Department Findings of Fact iConclusions of Law Order PrH-V-75-C) 

This cause came on for hearing before Presiding Hearing Chairman Mildred H. 
Mahoney and Commissioner Chester N. Gibbs, who, upon consideration of all the 
evidence, set forth their findings, conclusions, and orders as follows: 

Findings of Fact 

1. Complainant is a Negro and resident of the City of Boston. 

2. The respondent is in the real estate business in Boston. In connection therewith, 
he rents, leases, and negotiates for rentals and leases for apartments in buildings in 
the City of Boston. 

3. The respondent operates his business out of several offices, one of which is located 
at 544 \Vashington Street, Dorchester, and is open to and solicits business from the 
public. 

4. The respondent at all times material hereto employed persons to conduct respond- 
ent's business for him and on his behalf from said office on Washington Street. 

5. On September 20, 1963, complainant, by appointment, went to respondent's said 
office for the purpose of viewing apartments which respondent was offering for rent. 
Respondent knew at this time that complainant desired an apartment for a rental in 
the range of $70 a month. Respondent at this time did not know the source of com- 
plainant's income. One of respondent's employees showed complainant an apartment 
in an area composed substantially of all Negroes at a rental of $50 a month, unheated. 
Said employee told complainant that there were no other apartments available at that 
time. Said apartment at that time, was not fit for habitation. White applicants to 
respondent for comparable apartments were discouraged from viewing said apartment. 
At said time respondent was offering at least one other apartment in an area the 
composition of which was not principally Negro, and which, although at a slightly 
higher rental, was within a range which respondent's employee would ordinarily show 
to an applicant looking for an apartment for a rental of $70 per month. Such apart- 
ment in other respects fulfilled the requirements for an apartment of complainant. 
Had complainant not been Negro, respondent's employee would have shown such 
apartment to complainant. 

The following conclusions are set forth: 



13 



(1) The respondent had the right to rent or lease housing accommodations in mul- 
tiple dwellings within the meaning of G. L. c. 151B. 

(2) Respondent's agents refused to extend the same services to the complainant as 
were available to others, solely on account of complainant's color, in violation of said 
chapter 151 B. 

(3) Respondent is responsible for such unlawful acts of said agents. 

(4) The orders herein made will effectuate the purposes of said chapter 151 B. 
On the basis of the foregoing, and pursuant to G. L. c. 151 B, s. 5, it is hereby 
ORDEjRED by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination that the 

respondent, George B. Wattendorf, his agents and servants: 

1. Cease and desist and in the future refrain from making any inquiry, distinction, 
discrimination or restriction on account of religion, color, race, national origin or 
ancestry in the conduct of any phase of the respondent's business. 

2. To order all persons w^ho act for or in behalf of the respondent to cease and 
desist and in the future refrain from making any such distinction, discrimination or 
restriction. 

3. To send this Commission on or before the fifth day of each month subsequent 
hereto for twelve successive months a report, which shall state, for the next proceeding 
month: 

(a) The number, location and size by rooms of each apartment which became or 
was available for rental during said month and which respondent had a right 
to lease or show to prospective tenants; and the date upon which such apart- 
ment became so available. 

Ch) The name and stated requirements of each Negro who requested or used the 
services of respondent and the date or dates on which such services were used 
or requested during such month to the extent observable or given; but the 
foregoing shall not authorize the making of any inquiry prohibited by orders 1 
and 2 above. 

(c) A list of any apartments which were shown or offered to be shown to each such 
Negro during said month, and wthat, if any, such apartment was leased by such 
Negro. 

(d) To Show to complainant, on request, all apartments wliioh resf>ondent has avail- 
able to show applicants for rental, for a rent up to |75 per month, heated, and 
to admit complainant as tenant in any such apartment of her choice, all on the 
same basis, terms and conditions as appertain to other applicants therefore. 

Dated at Boston this 17th day of December 1963. 

Mildred H. Mahoney, Chairman 
Chester N. Gibbs, Commissioner 

AGREEMENT REACHED BY THE MCAD— NAACP— CORE 

AND THE BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 

The following statement sums up an agreement reached after a thorough and 
lengthy investigation. The complaint against the Boston Housing Authority was 
brought to the MCu\D by the Boston Chapter of the NAACP. The resulting case is 
still not officially closed because it is being held open until the provisions of settlement 
have become accomplished facts. The following agreement, however, in itself is most 
worthy of reporting as a major accomplishment in 1963. 

STATEMENT OF BEN G. SHAPIRO, INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER 
ON THE OCa\SION OF THE SIGNING OF THE AGREEMENT 
BETWEEN MR. SHAPIRO, NAACP, CORE & BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 

The execution of this agreement with the Boston Housing Authority has reconfirmed 
the wisdom of the Legislature in regarding conciliation as the most appropriate initial 
means of resolving the problems of race relationships, which face the community. 
This case clearly demonstrates the advantage enjoyed by a solution reached through 
mutual concern, understanding, and effort over a decision imposed upon one or both 
parties by the Courts. It has now been more than a year since the allegations of 
segregation in public housing in Boston first were presented to me officially. During 
that time, many people had pressured me to send the matter to public hearing. I 



14 



resisted such pressure, not because of any doubts of sincerity of the persons involved, 
but because of my convictions that all the parties truly wanted to arrive at an equitable 
solution to the most difficult problems, and would inevitably reach such a solution. 
Accordingly, I insisted that discussion not be abandoned until a definite impasse had 
been reached. This course, in my judgment, effectuates the purpose of the Legislature, 
and the agreement signed today vindicates the wisdom of that purpose. 

The ultimate agreement places the primary responsibility for attaining racially 
integi'ated public housing where it belongs — on the Administrators who are most 
knowledgeable in the field of public housing. The Administrators will be assisted 
in this task by an advisory board of concerned community leaders. 

The solution which evolved during these negotiations enjoys the support of all who 
participated. Its chances for successful implementation are enhanced by the fact that 
it has from its inception the freely given mutual consent of the parties most directly 
concerned with the problems involved. The conciliatory process recognizes and 
utilizes the common interest of such diverse groups in solving community problems. 
The exact focal point of the various groups certainly differs, as is fitting in a large 
community with complex problems requiring a division of labor. Yet, the ultimate aim 
of each group, w-hether immediately concemed with figihting discrimination or pro- 
viding public housing, is to make the Commonwealth a better place in which to live. 

The Agreement deserves careful reading by all persons interested in the problems of 
race relationships in public housing. It was an Agreement reached without any undue 
pressure. We believe that the Agreement was the first of its kind in the nation and 
trust that it will serve as a model to be used by others with similar problems. 

It is fitting at this time to express a note of thanks to those without wthose assistance 
this Agreement could not have come about. Primarily, of course, we are forever in the 
debt of those farsighted statesmen whose labors brought the Commission into being 
and sustained it. Then of course, I want personally to thank the representatives of 
the Housing Authority, the NAACP and CORE who at all times labored with sincerity 
and conviction to bring about an equitable solution to the problems. We owe an 
incalculable debt of gratitude to the Attorney General, and to his assistant Lee H. 
Kozol, Chief of the Division of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, w^ho assisted me in 
the negotiations and preparation of this Agreement. 

Finally, it is my hope that the execution of this Agreement will demonstrate to all 
the citizens of the Commonwealth that they should bring their grievances to the 
Commission wfhich is the legal arm of the Commonwearth empowered by law to 
deal with all matters concerning racial and religious discrimination. 

HOUSING LAW OF 1963 

An exciting achievement in 1963 was the passage of a most inclusive housing law. 
Massachusetts was the first state to so widen the coverage of housing accommodations. 
The Commission was greatly assisted by memibers of its Advisory Council on Housing 
and most particularly by the study made of existing laws by Mr. Alfred W. Halper a 
member of the Steering Committee of the Advisor)^ Council on Housing. Because 
the extension of housing coverage is spreading throughout the country it seems of 
value to give a full history of how it developed and succeeded in Massachusetts. 

In November, 1962, the following was compiled: 

BRIEF SUMMARY AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF 
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW^S IN THE HOUSING FIELD 

In 1950 discriminatory practice was outlawed in public housing. 
In 1957 discrimination v/as made illegal in publicly assisted liousing accommo- 
dations. These accommodations fall into four basic categories. 

1. Housing built after July 1, 1950 on land acquired or sold below cost by the 
Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions, or favored with public 
funds or tax exemption. 

2. Apartment houses, if financed by a Federal Government, insured or guaranteed 
loan AFTER October 1, 1957, but only during the life of such loan. 

3. Housing which is part of ten or more contiguously located housing, sold, leased 
or rented by a PERSON IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, if 'such housing 
was financed by or favored with a commitment for a federal government 



15 



insured loan AFTER October 1, 1957, but only during the life of such loan 
or such commitment. There is grave doubt that a resale by a home owner 
comes under this law. 
4. Multiple dwellings with three or more families. 
In 1959, the law was extended to include housing in two additional classifications. 

1. Housing which is part of ten or more contiguously located housing sold, leased 
or rented by a person in the real estate business. (This change eliminated 
the condition related to government insurance or guarantee.) This change 
did not, however, include resales of such housing by home owners. 

2. Housing which is part of ten or more lots shown on a plan which has been 
submitted to a planning board as required by the Subdivision Control Law. 
Resales of housing in this category do come under the law\ 

WHY OUR FAIR HOUSING LAW SHOULD BE REVISED TO 
INCLUDE WIDER COVERAGE 

The Colangelo case, so called has cleared the way for broad coverage. It would 
seem to appear that the general principles expressed by the Court and its findings 
would indicate that anti-discrimination legislation may lawfully be applied to all 
private property. 

"It is only w*hen a legislative finding cannot be supported upon any rational basis 
of fact that reasonably can be conceived to sustain it that a Court is empowered to 
strike it down." "If the question is fairly debatable. Courts cannot substitute their 
judgment for that of the Legislature." 

With respect to Colangelo's major argument that there has been an invasion of his 
rights in property, the Court quotes the established principle that "neither property 
rights nor contract rights are absolute; for the government cannot exist if the citizen 
may at his will use his property to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom 
of contract to work them harm. Equally fundamental with the private right is that 
of the public to regulate it in the common interest." 

The Court quoted the provision in the Constitution of the Commonwealth which 
confers upon the General Court "full power and authority ... to make, ordain, and 
esiablish, all manner of wholesome and reasonable . . . laws, statutes ... so as the 
same be not repugnant or contrary to the constitution, as they shall judge to be for 
the good and welfare of this Commonwealth . . ." 

Article 1 of the Declaration of Rights defines as one of the "natural essential, and 
unalienable rights . . . that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property." 

Justice Spiegal, in a minority decision, held that, "when a person acts so as to 
create a 'second class' of citizens, then the injunctive provisions of the law to prevent 
a recurrence of such classification should be applied to the fullest extent." 

THERE ARE TOO MANY EXCLUSIONS IN THE PRESENT LAW 

Under the Fair Housing Law, the number of persons who may unlawfully discrimi- 
nate outnumber by far the persons who may not discriminate in the single and two 
family housing area. 

The number of bome owners w^ho may not discriminate represent a ver\' tiny 
segment of the housing market. 

All homes built prior to January 1, 1954 unless government insured or guaranteed 
after October 1, 1957 with such loan still outstanding are excluded w^hen sold by an 
individual home owner. 

All homes built after January 1, 1954 and currently being built today without the 
benefit of financing, insured or guaranteed by the government, are excluded when 
resold by home owners. 

The fact is that in 180 towns and cities of a total of 351, more than a majority, all 
home owners may lawfully discriminate if their homes are conventionally financed. 

In these 180 towns and cities, even builders may lawfully discriminate if they are 
selling fewer than 10 contiguously located homes which are conventionally financed. 

Boston, Cambridge, Belmont, Arlington, Somerville, Clielsea, Maiden, Salem, Lowell, 
"Watertown and Lawrence are just a few of the towns and cities included in this 
classification. 



16 



In view of these disparties and differences in the application of the law, how is it 
possible for a buyer to determine whether or not he has a just complaint? How is it 
possible for a home owner to determine whether he can or cannot lawfully discriminate 
without extensive research? 

The need for universal application of anti-discrimination laws in housing is quite 
apparent. 

On February 28, 1963, at a hearing on S-350 (the housing bill) before the Joint 
Mercantile Affairs Committee Che following spoke for the bill whidh had been peti- 
tioned for by the Ck)mmission (this is not a complete listing but nearly so): 

James P. LaAvton, Legislative Secretary to the Governor (read a statement by the 
Governor); Representative Freyda P. Koplow, Representative Royal L. Boiling, Senator 
Leslie B. Cutler, (R) proposed the bill; Lee H. Kozol, Assistant Attorney General in 
charge of Civil Rights Division (also assigned to represent MOAD); Sen. A. Frank 
Foster (D) proposed the bill; Robert E. Segal, Executive Director Jewisih Community 
Council of Metropolitan Boston; Mrs. Mildred H. Mahoney, Chairman MCAD; Ben G. 
Shapiro, Commissioner MCAD; Chester N. Gibbs, Commissioner MCAD; Edward J. 
McCormack, Jr., former Attorney General; Representative Gerald J. Morrissey; Repre- 
sentative Lincoln G. Pope, Jr.; Representative Gregory B. Khadhadoorian; William J. 
White, Managing Director, Broker's Institute of Greater Boston; Maurice E. Frye, Jr., 
President, Rental Housing Association of Greater Boston; John W. Kunhardt, Vice 
President, Hunneman and Co., Greater Boston Real Estate Board — Broker's Institute; 
Alfred W. Halper, Realtor, representing 7 Home Builders Assoc.; Dr. Franklin Patter- 
son, Director, Lincoln Filene Center for Civic Education, Tufts University; George 
Strait, Harvard University, representing Natick Fair Housing Practices Committee; 
Rev. Wayne Horvath, Director, Dept. of Social Relations, Mass. Council of Churches; 
Gerald A. Berlin, former Assistant Attorney General in charge of Civil Rig'hts Divisions 
(representing the American Jewish Congress); Representative Irving Fishman (also Fair 
Housing Practices Committee — Newton); Clayton T. Drown, representing the Worcester 
Council Against Discrimination; Miss Margaret Gearan, representing Dr. Thomas 
Curtin, Director of Civic Education, State Dept. of Education; Earl Henderson, repre- 
senting United Auto Workers; Richard Banks, '1st Vice President, NAACP; Arthur L. 
Singer, Jr., Asst. Dean of Social Science, M. 1. T., also member of Fair Housing Inc.; 
Edward Richmond, Mass. Committee Against Discrimination in Housing; George B. 
Pettengill, Executive Director International Student Association, also Fair Housing 
Federation; Raymond H. Young, Attorney, representing the Americans for Democratic 
Action (ADA); Allan Zenowitz, Management Consultant (real estate); Julius Bernstein, 
Executive Secretary, Massachusetts Labor Committee for Human Rights; Mark Finer, 
Community Service Consultant, Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith; Alan Gartner. 
Chairman, Greater Boston Congress of Racial Equality (CORE); J. Westbrook McPher- 
son. Executive Director Urban League of Greater Boston. The following Fair Housing 
Committees were also represented: Wellesley, Arlington, Wakefield, Needham, Concord, 
Stoughton, Framingham, Beacon Hill and kewton. 

It is significant to note that there was no opposition. At this hearing Assistant 
Attorney General Lee H. Kozol, Ghairman of the Division of Civil Rights in the 
Attorney General's ofl&ce, representing the Mass. Commission Against Discrimination 
in legal matters, made the following presentation: 

To the Honorable Chairman and Members 

of the Mercantile Affairs Committee 
State House 

Boston 53, Massachusetts 
Gentlemen: 

The principles of Senate Bill 350 need no advocates in this forum; and we need 
not pause here to argue the moral or ethical justification of a bill which so clearly 
espouses Che aspirations of the Commonwealth as a Whole. Rather, our purpose 
here will be to examine the place of the proposed legislation in the existing pattern 
of our fair practices law. 

I. 

The basic purpose of S. 350 is not to legislate new principles of law; nor is it to 
extend existing principles into areas not related to those now covered by existing 
laws. The purpose is to perfect the existing Fair Housing Act by remedying anom- 



17 



alies which have been uncovered by experience and by extending its reach to areas 
which are not logically distinguishable from it. 

The first and most significant change proposed is the extension of the provisions 
of the Act to cover all public offerings for the sale of housing, and for the leasing 
of accommodations other than from a resident landlord of a two-family dwelling. 
It is a common misconception that chapter 151 B, in broad terms, now applies only 
to those in the real estate business. But section 1 (12) defines "contiguously located 
housing" to include housing which "at any time was one of ten or more lots of a 
tract" subject to the Subdivision Control Laws; and section 1 (10) includes within 
the definition of "publicly assisted housing" all housing accommodations constructed 
with certain forms of federal or state assistance. By proscribing discriminatory prac- 
tices in the disposition of these types of accommodations, section 4 (6) impresses the 
restrictions of the Act on the land itself, without reference to the claim of title or 
the owner's privity with the developer. 

Clearly there can be no rational distinctions for the purposes of the Fair Housing 
Laws between land subdivided pursuant to the Subdivision Control Law and land 
which would have been so subdivided but for the fact that the city or town had not 
accepted the law; or but for the fact Chat the subdivision was effected prior to the 
effective date of the law; or but for the fact that approval of the Board was not 
necessary under the Act. Indeed, the Subdivision Control Law was enacted for 
purposes entirely unrelated to the Fair Housing Laws. Certain rules and standards 
which are well calculated to accomplish the purposes of proper subdivision control, 
such as allowing the approval of the subdivision of a large tract to be done piece- 
meal, or allowing the subdivider to retain a private way wiPhin the tract, have no 
reasonable relationship to the principles of fair housing practices. It is not surprising 
that the incorporation by reference of the Subdivision Control Law into parts of 
the Fair Housing Act caused sporadic and irrational application thereof, and thus 
impeded the proper administration of this most sensitive area. Section 2 of S. 350 
merely applies the law equally to all those similarly situated. 

The second principal feature of the Bill is the inclusion within the provisions of 
chapter 15 IB of land intended for use as housing accommodations covered by the 
chapter. Under current law, persons covered cannot sell a "housing accommodation" 
on a discriminatory basis. A "housing accommodation" is essentially defined as a 
"building." This leaves a developer free to discriminate in the sale of land intended 
for residential development. By merely adopting a different form of operation from 
that now in current practice, a developer can frustrate the purposes of the law and 
subvert its effectiveness. The common practice of residential developers has been to 
execute with the prospective buyer of a residence a construction contract and 
purc!hase and sale agreement. The deed passes when the housing accommodation is 
built. This differs from the practice in commercial land development, where ordi- 
narily title to the vacant land passes prior to or simultaneously with the execution 
of the construction contract, A sales of land on a deferred payment basis, coupled 
with a construction agreement and a commitment of the developer to bear the real 
estate taxes and other costs of the land until completion of the structure would 
circumvent the statute without altering in any way the substance of the transaction. 
Section 3 of S. 350, by including within the scope of the chapter, land intended for 
the erection of housing accommodations which are covered by the chapter after 
construction, merely precludes this particular form of subversion of the Act. 

II. 

In addition to the specific internal inconsistencies noted above, the current exclu- 
sions of single and nonresident two-family homeowners from the coverage of the 
Act creates a basic conflict in the existing policies of fair practices legislation. The 
fundamental distinction between that which can be regulated and that Which cannot 
or should not be regulated is not the magnitude of the transaction involved. The 
smallest shop as well as the biggest department store is subject to the public 
accommodations law. Nor is the distinction to be found in the degree of business 
involvement between the parties. The twenty-year mortgage, the lease for a term 
of years and the issuance of performance bonds are no less covered by the Act than 
is the cash-and-carry, isolated sale. The basic distinction is between the business 
transaction and the personal transaction, between the public offering and the private 



18 



offering. It is, of course, true that the exclusions of the Fair Employment and Fair 
Housing laws talk generally in terms of numbers rather than in terms of "confi- 
dential" or "personal" relationships. But it is perfectly clear from an examination 
of tire entire statutory pattern of fair practices laws, that the General Court based 
these exclusions on easily determined, empirical standards, in order to eliminate 
both the bulk of those closely-knit, personal relationships which should not be 
regulated and also those vaguely defined "litigation clauses" which would destroy 
the effectiveness of the laws. 

By excluding sales of all, and leasing of nonresident two-family, housing accom- 
modations, the largest group of simple business transactions, in the residential 
accommodations area escape regulation, notwithstanding that they are no difEerent 
generically from those transactions now covered. A nonresident landlord of a single 
or two-family dwelling has a relation to his tenant identical in character to that 
existing between an apartment house owner and his tenants. Similarly, the nature of 
a sale of a residence does not vary whether it is an isolated sale, or one of many sales. 
Indeed, in all these cases, the direct contacts between seller and buyer, or landlord 
and tenant, are generally minimal and often nonexistent. Frequently, the lawyers 
and brokers or agents handle the entire transaction, and the parties never even meet. 

Senate 350 preserves the citizen's privilege to discriminate in the renting of one 
part of his own house, when he occupies the other. Beyond this, the business loses 
its personal aspects and becomes a commercial enterprise. The bill further permits 
a citizen to negotiate the private sale of his house to \vihomever he chooses. But 
when he uses public advertising media, the sale — even if isolated — is a business 
transaction no less than is that of the shopkeeper making a casual sale of goods, 
and subject to the public accommodation laws. 

III. 

In the past, opponents of fair practices legislation perennially argued that it was 
unjust and unwise to "force" persons to deal with others. Their arguments having 
been so often rejected by legislation and courts, at least to the extent discussed 
above, the current trend of argument seems to involve the invocation of the supposed 
"rights" of tenants and neighbors indirectly affected by the law. Presumably these 
"rights" are to pressure the landlord or developer into leasing or selling to "accept- 
able" persons. Yet it is perfectly obvious that these "rights" are spurious, insubstan- 
tial, and "granted" only for the purpose of argument, to dissolve upon its conclusion. 
Whoever one is and wiherever he goes, he cannot select his neighbors by directing 
the acts of others who control the leasing of other space in the apartment where 
he lives or the selling of adjoining property. Indeed, agreements requiring the 
landowner to restrict the sales or rental policies on a discriminatory basis would 
undoubtedly be unenforceable. See Shelley v. Kraemer, 344 U. S. 1. 

Furthermore, this argument of the opposition ignores the real rights of the 
neighbors to derive the benefits of free associations and of the interplay of diverse 
ideas from men of differing backgrounds. If our concepts of pluralism degenerate 
into the philosophical acceptance of rigid castes, then this society will atrophy from 
ideological malnutrition. 

IV. 

The constitutionality of the Bill can no longer seriously be questioned. In 
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination v. Colangelo, 1962, a.s. 835, the 
court set forth the relevant principles: 

" 'It is only w^hen a legislative finding cannot be supported on any rational basis 
of fact that reasonably can be conceived to sustain it that a court is empowered 
to strike it down. . . .' " p. 837, quoting Druzik v. Board of Health of Haverhill, 
324 Mass. 129, 138-39. 

" 'The Legislature possesses a large measure of discretion to determine what the 
public interests require and what means should be taken to protect these interests. 
The field for the legitimate exercise of the police power is coextensive with the 
changing needs of society.' " p. 840, quoting Merit Oil Company v. Director of the 
Div. on the Necessaries of Life, 315 Mass. 301, 304-05. 



19 



"We enumerate certain possible findings which the Legislature could have made 
to support valid objectives. These are not necessarily a complete list. (I) Dis- 
crimination in multiple dwelling and contiguously located housing might tend to 
restrict Negroes to a relatively small area and perhaps to encourage slum condi- 
tions through density of population . , . (citing cases) (2) Housing discrimination 
could impede the relocation of families affected by urban redevelopment programs 
. . . (citing cases) (3) There might be a shortage in housing from which Negroes 
could suffer more than other groups." pp. 840-41. 
Senate 350 does not leave the legislative findings to conjecture. Section one of the 
Bill sets forth a number of findings, included in which are the three specifically 
referred to in the Colangelo case. 

Although the court discussed the case primarily in the context in which it arose, 
as the application of a statute, "really aimed at preventing discrimination in the 
business of housing." p. 845, the principles set forth in the opinion clearly establish 
the constitutionality of S. 350. 

V. 

In the almost two decades of the existence of the Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination, its effectiveness has stemmed largely from its unique ability 
to promote understanding through its legally sanctioned processes of conciliation, 
dissemination of information and the like. The relatively few public hearings 
instituted by that Commission attest to its peculiar capacity to adjust differences 
and promote understanding between men on a noncoercive basis. The Commission is 
not primarily a litigious body; it is primarily a good-will agency, armed with all the 
powers of reason and rationality and with legal authority to resort to administration 
and judicial processes only when these powers are ineffective. There is an urgent 
necessity to expand its jurisdiction to cover the largest segment of residential housing 
in the Commonwealth. There are many suburban communities which consist almost 
entirely of single residences. These communities comprise some of our most desirable 
residential neighborhoods. There is no reason to believe that the great strides 
toward better understanding among neighbors which have been achieved by the 
Commission in the areas of large apartment and residential developments cannot 
be extended to cover all housing, when sold or rented as a commercial venture. 
The Bill neither changes principles of prior legislation, nor enacts new principles. 
It merelv extends existing principles to those areas which logically should be covered. 
The massive public works program of the Commonwealth, with its concomitant 
displacement of large blocks of persons, renders these extensions imperative for the 
fair treatment of all citizens of the Commonwealth. The need of old, established 
and highly stratified communities for revitalization through the influx of new ideas 
renders these extensions imperative for the continued intellectual, cultural and 
social supremacy of the Commonwealth. 

It is indeed unfortunate that S. 350 is necessary in this Commonwealth. This is 
the place where liberty was born; where concepts of human dignity first became 
viable. For many years the whole world looked to this Commonwealth for guidance 
and leadership in all matters of justice and fair play. The enactment of S. 350 will be 
significant to the revitalization of this leadership, which many believe to have been 
relinquished in the past half-centur)\ 

Respectfully submitted, 

Edward W. Brooke, Attorney General 
By 

Lee H. Kozol, Assistant Attorney General 

S350 became law and is hereafter referred to as Chapter 197 of the acts of 1963. It 
was approved April 1, 1963 and became effective July 1, 1963. It reads as follows: 

Chap. 197. An Act providing that the law relative to unlawful discrimination 

IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OR LEASE OF MULTIPLE DWELLING OR CON- 
TIGUOUSLY LOCATED HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS SHALL APPLY TO ALL 
HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS OFFERED FOR SALE OR LEASE TO THE PUBLIC, 
EXCEPT TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS OCCUPIED IN PART BY THE OWNER. 

Be it enacted, etc., as follows: 



20 



Section 1. iSection 1 of chapter 151B of the General Laws is hereby amended by 
adding after subsection 12, added by section 1 of chapter 239 of the acts of 1959, 
the following subsection: — 

13. The term "other covered housing accommodations" includes all housing 
accommodations not specifically covered under subsections 10, 11 and 12 which are 
directly or through an agent made generally available to the public for sale or lease 
or rental, by advertising in a newspaper or othenvise, by posting of a sign or signs 
or a notice or notices on the premises or elsewhere, by listing with a broker, or by 
any other means of public offering. 

Section 2. Section 4 of said chapter 15 IB is hereby amended by inserting after 
subsection 6 the following subsection: — 

7. For the owner, lessee, sublessee, real estate broker, assignee or managing agent 
of other covered housing accommodations or of land intended for the erection of 
any housing accommodation included under subsections 10, 11, 12 or 13 of section 
one, or other person having the right of ownership or possession or right to rent or 
lease, or sell, or negotiate for the sale or lease of such land or accommodations, or 
any agent or employee of such a person: — (a) to refuse to rent or lease or sell or 
negotiate for sale or lease or otherwise to deny to or withhold from any person or 
group of persons such accommodations or land because of the race, creed, color, 
national origin, or national ancestry of such person or persons; (b) to discriminate 
against any person because of his race, creed, color, national origin or national ances- 
try in the terms, conditions or privileges of such accommodations or land or the 
acquisition thereof, or in the furnishing of facilities and services in connection there- 
with; or (c) to cause to be made any written or oral inquiry or record concerning 
the race, creed, color, national origin or national ancestry of the person seeking to 
rent or lease or buy any such accommodation or land; provided, however, that this 
subsection shall not apply to the leasing of a single apartment or flat in a two 
family dwelling, the other occupancy unit of which is occupied by the owner as 
his residence. 

Approved April 1, 1963. 

"A Guide to the Fair Housing Law" was prepared for wide distribution and directly 
after the housing law became effective was distributed by members of the Advisory 
Council on Housing and by members of other interested groups. Over 85,000 copies 
have been distributed. 

This guide reads as follows: 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

A GUIDE TO THE FAIR HOUSING LAW 

Prepared For 

Real Estate Brokers, Home Builders, Real Estate Owners, Land Developers 
Landlords, Agents and Tenants, Home Owners and Home Buyers 

By 

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 
41 Tremont Street, Boston 8 

PURPOSE OF THE FAIR HOUSING LAW 

The prevention and elimination of discrimination, because of race, creed, color, 
national origin or ancestry, in the selling, renting or leasing of housing accommodations 
or of land intended for use as such which are made generally available to the public. 
WHAT IS UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION? 

When housing covered by the Fair Housing Law is made available to the public, it 
is unlawful: 

(1) To refuse to rent or lease or sell or negotiate for sale or lease or otherwise to 
deny to or withhold from any person such housing or land because of the race, 
creed, color, national origin or ancestry of such persons. 



21 



(2) To discriminate against any person because of his race, creed, color, national 
origin or ancestry in the terms, conditions or privileges of such housing or land 
or the acquisition thereof, or in the furnishing of facilities and services in 
connection therewith. 

(3) To cause to be made any written or oral inquiry or record concerning the race, 
creed, color, national origin or ancestry of the person seeking to rent, lease or 
buy any such housing or land. 

(4) To advertise for rent or for sale such housing or land, to post a 'Tor Rent" or 
'Tor Sale" sign or notice, or to offer or to accept a listing, which advertisement, 
sign or listing is intended to discriminate against any person or group of persons 
because of the race, creed, color, national origin or ancestry of such person or 
persons. 

PROPERTY COVERED BY THE FAIR HOUSING LAW 

Virtually all land and housing accommodations in the Commonwealth intended for 
human habitation are covered. These include residentially zoned land and house lots; 
single-^family; two-family and three-family homes; apartment and tenement houses, 
multi-family dwellings and housing developments; pulblic housing and publicly assisted 
housing. 

The law covers resales by home owners as well as sales by those engaged in the real 
estate business. It includes the renting of an apartment, furnished or unfurnished, 
by a landlord; and the sublease of apartments by tenants. 

The law excludes only the rental of an apartment in a two-family home when the 
other apartment is occupied by the owner as his residence. 

A HOUSING ACCOMMODATION IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC 
WHEN DIRECTLY OR THROUGH AN AGENT 

(1) It is advertised in a newspaper or other media, or 

(2) a 'Tor Rent" or "For Sale" sign or notice is posted on the property or else- 
where, or 

(3) it is listed with a broker or agent, or when 

(4) any other means of pulblic oflEering is used. 

WHO MAY NOT DISCRIMINATE? 

The owner, lessee, sublessee, broker, assignee or managing agent of housing or land 
covered by the Fair Housing Law; or any person have the right of ownership or 
possession or right to rent or lease, or sell, or negotiate for the sale or lease of such 
land or housing; or any agent or employee of such a person; or any person in the 
business of granting home mortgage loans. 

DISCRIMINATION SHOULD BE REPORTED 

It is the civic duty of any person, who believes that he or she is the victim of 
unlawful discrimination, to report at once such act to the Commission Against 
Discrimination, 41 Tremont Street, Boston. Telephone CApitol 7-3111. 

HOW MAY THE COMMISSION ASSIST VICTIMS OF DISCRIMINATION? 

If the Investigating Commissioner believes after investigation that there is probable 
cause to credit the claim of discrimination he endeavors through conference, concili- 
ation and persuasion to eliminate the unlawful practice. If he fails so to do, he must 
refer the case to the other Commissioners for a public hearing. At this public hearing 
a determination is made as to whether or not there has been a violation of the law. 
If it is determined that there has been a violation, the Commission will issue such 
orders as are appropriate. These orders are enforceable by the Superior Court. 

PENALTIES FOR VIOLATORS 

Any person who shall wilfully violate a final order of the Commission after its 
enforcement has been ordered by the Superior Court or any person who shall wilfully 
file a false complaint shall be punished for each offense by imprisonment for not more 
than one year or by a fine of not more than $500 or by both. In addition the Board of 
Registry of Real Estate Brokers and Salesmen may revoke the license of a broker or 
salesman if he fails to comply with a final order of the Commission. 



22 



POSTING OF COMMISSION NOTICES 

A notice prqjared by or approved by the Commission, and which sets forth infor- 
mation relating to the Fair Housing Law, shall be conspicuously displayed in real 
estate agencies, rental offices, model homes and model apartments, and in other places 
of business where negotiations or agreements are customarily made for the rental, 
leasing or purchasing of housing accommodations. 

PURPOSE OF THIS PAMPHLET 

This publication is designed to acquaint the public with the existence and general 
scope of the Fair Housing Laws. It is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of 
these laws. If you wish additional copies of this pamphlet for distribution or if you 
have any questions concerning the law, you should contact the Commission. 

PUBLIC HOUSING SURVEY STATISTICS 

To permit a comparison the statistics of the non-white tenant population of the 
years 1961, 1962 and 1963 are recorded in this section. 

BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1961 


1962 


1963 


Broadway 


972 


14 


15 


15 


Camden Street 


72 


71 


71 


72 


Commonwealth 


648 


18 


1 A 

14 


17 


Faneuil 


258 


2 


2 


3 


Fairmont 


202 











Archdale 


288 


5 


4 


4 


Orient Heights 


354 


7 


5 


2 


Gallivan Boulevard 


251 








1 


Franklin Field 


504 


13 


16 


19 


South Street 


132 











Total 


3,681 




130 




127 




133 


Federal Program 










Charlestown 


1,149 


5 


4 


5 


Mission Hill 


1,023 





I 


3 


Lenox Street 


30o 








Orchard Park 


774 


179 


235 


267 


South End 


558 


271 


275 


276 


Heath Street 


420 


6 


11 


49 


East Boston 


414 











Franklin Hill Avenue 


375 


16 


15 


18 


Whittier Street 


200 


187 


185 


192 


Washington and Beach Sts. 


274 


2 


3 


3 


Mission Hill Extension 


588 


492 


504 


518 


Bromlev Park 


732 


188 


196 


240 


Columbia Point 


1,504 


184 


204 


285 


Old Harbor Village 


1,016 











Old Colony 


873 


2 








Total 


10,156 


1,831 


1,931 


2,261 


Housing For The Elderly 










Bickford 


64 




8 


8 


Jamaica Pond 


44 










Annapolis 


56 




1 


1 


Ashmont 


54 










Elm Hill 


86 




15 


14 


Franklin Field 


80 




1 


2 


Bay View Apartments 


96 






1 


Total 


480 




25 


26 


BROCKTON 


HOUSING AUTHORITY 






State Program 


No. of Units 


No. of Non-White Famili 




1961 


1962 


1963 




284 


10 


10 


9 


Federal Program 


100 


7 


8 


9 



23 



CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 


No. of Units 


No. of 


Non-White 


Familit 




1961 


1962 


1963 


Woodrow Wilson Court 


69 


2 


3 


3 


Jefferson Park 


109 


7 


9 


7 


Lincoln Way 


60 


1 


2 


3 


Roosevelt Towers 


228 


21 


22 


23 


Jackson Gardens 


46 










Jefferson Park Extension 


200 


9 


11 


11 


Total 


712 




40 




47 




48 


Federal Program 










Washington Elms 


324 


38 


39 


51 


Putnam Gardens 


123 


42 


43 


44 


New Towne Court 


294 


14 


16 


21 


Corcoran 


152 


4 


5 


5 


Total 


893 


98 


103 


121 



FALMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Progr.\m No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1961 


1962 


1963 


Amvets Avenue 


50 


5 


4 


2 


Mayflower 


24 











Total 


74 


5 


4 


2 


Housing For The Elderly 










Salt Sea 


30 




1 


1 



HOLYOKE HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 



Beaudoin Village 219 114 

Minnie R. Dwight Village 42 

Edwin A. Seibel Apartments 40 

Total 301 114 
Federal Program 

Jackson Parkway 219 2 

Lyman Terrace 167 4 4 16 

Henry Toepfert Apartments 98 5 16 24 



Total 484 9 20 42 
Housing For The Elderly 

John J. Zeilinski Apartments 64 — 

P. A. Coughlin Apartments 55 — 

Beaudry Boucher Apartments 31 — 11 

Total 150 1 1 



NEW BEDFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 

Parkdale 100 3 4 4 

Blue Meadows 150 14 15 15 

Nashmont 80 

Crestview-Westwood (Elderly) 75 2 1 1 

Total 405 19 20 20 
Federal Program 

Bay Village 200 155 163 163 

Presidential Heights 200 2 2 

Brickenwood 300 16 17 15 

^Vestlawn 200 44 47 49 

Total 900 215 229 229 



24 



PITTSFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 



Wilson Park 126 

Francis Plaza (Elderly) 40 111 

Wahconah Heights (Elderly) 68 

Total 2M 111 
Federal Program 

Victory Hill 99 1 



PLYMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Progr.\m No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 



Olmstead Terrace and 

Standish Court 40 2 3 3 

Castle Hill (Elderly) 47 — — 4 

Total 87 2 3 7 



SPRINGFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 

Reed Village 200 18 32 35 

Robinson Gardens 136 12 12 11 

Duggan Park 196 16 20 21 

Carpe Diem (Elderly) 76 111 

Harry P. Hogan Apartments 32 3 3 1 

Total 639 50 68 69 

Federal Program 

Riverview 241 — — 34 



WORCESTER HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 

Curtis Apartments 390 5 6 11 

Lakeside Apartments 204 
George F. Booth 

Memorial Apartments 75 1 

Total 669 5 7 11 
Federal Program 

Great Brook Valley Gardens 600 19 17 22 

Mayside Lane Apartments (Elderly) 50 

Addison Streets Apartments (Elderly) 50 

Mill Pond Lane Apartments (Elderly) 50 — — 

Total 750 19 17 22 



ARLINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

Menotomy Manor 
Drake Village 

Total 





1961 


1962 


1963 


176 





2 


2 


72 











248 





2 


2 



BARNSTABLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 

General Patton 40 10 12 11 

BROOKLINE HOUSmO AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 

Egmont Street Development 114 4 1 



25 



High Street Development 117 12 

Marion Street Development 60 

Total 291 5 3 
Federal Program 

Walnut Street 100 — 2 2 



CHELSEA HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 
350 1 

Federal Progr,\m 200 1 2 1 



EVERETT HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 

Corbett Hill 268 17 17 17 

Winthrop Road 60 3 2 2 

Cherry Street 64 3 3 3 

Golden Age Circle (Elderly) 40 
Proctor Road 120 111 

Total 552 24 23 23 



FRAMINGHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Progr.\m No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 
276 112 

Federal Program 

125 12 2 



LAWRENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Progr.\m No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1961 


1962 


1963 


Stadium Courts 


256 


3 


6 


3 


Hancock Courts 


195 


3 


25 


9 


Total 


451 


6 


31 


12 


Federal Program 










Merrimack Courts 


292 


4 


3 


2 


Beacon Courts 


208 







4 


Total 


500 


4 


4 


6 


Houslng For The Elderly 










Rev. James O'Reilly 


83 










Rev. C. Bertrand Bower 


24 










Msgr. Edmond D. Daly 


30 










Total 


137 











LOWELL HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1961 


1962 


1963 


Gorham Street 


292 





1 


5 


Lakeview Avenue 


12 











Aiken Street 


20 











Concord Street 


16 











Hale Street 


15 











Total 


355 





1 


5 


Federal Progr.\m 










North Common Village 


536 





1 


2 


Chelmsford Street 


165 











Bishop Markham Village 


372 


3 


1 


6 


Total 


1,073 


3 


2 


8 



26 



MALDEN HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 
385 118 

Federal Program 

250 12 12 3 



MEDFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 
230 2 2 3 

Federal Program 

150 2 2 1 



REVERE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

Federal Program 
Housing For The Elderly 





1961 


1962 


1963 


286 











149 











82 











SOMERVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Progr.4M No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 



Mystic River 240 2 

Clarendon Hill 216 

Capon Court 64 12 1 

Total 520 12 3 
Federal Program 

Mystic View 216 10 1 

Highland Garden 42 2 

Prospect Hill Towers 100 — 2 1 

Total 358 1 4 2 



TAUNTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 

State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 

Riverside Apartments 102 11 13 18 

Highland Heights 40 2 3 3 

Total 142 13 16 21 
Federal Program 

Fairfax Gardens 150 13 13 14 

Hillcrest Terrace (Elderly) 24 — — 1 

Total 174 13 13 15 



WATERTOWN HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1961 


1962 


1963 


West End 


168 











East End 


60 











Waverly Avenue (Elderly) 


40 











Total 


268 












WEYMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 
208 110 



27 



State Progr.\m 

Edward Street 
Viking Gardens 



WINTHROP HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 



73 
30 



1961 




1962 




1963 




Total 



State Progilam 



103 

WOBURN HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 



1961 



1962 



1963 



Creston Avenue 


68 











Webster Avenue 


60 











Liberty Avenue 


48 











Total 


176 











Federal Program 










Spring Court 


100 


1 


1 


1 



Presentation of Mrs. Mildred H. Mahoney, Chairman, Massachusetts Com- 
mission Against Discrimination to the Massachusetts Advisory Committee to 
the United States Commission on Civil Rights — March 5, 1963. 

PRESENT LA^VS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION 
AND THEIR ADMINISTRATION 
I thank the Committee for the opportunity to be here and present my views. I often 
feel there is a good deal of misunderstanding about our present laws and I am de- 
lighted to have this opportunity to discuss them. It may well be that they can be 
improved. The Commission is at present advocating the passage of two bills that we 
think will improve them and we would be vain indeed if we felt our administration 
of the laws perfect. 

As Chairman of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination since 1946 1 
feel very privileged to have been concerned with laws so important to the full realiza- 
tion of justice for all. Our jurisdiction has expanded from the area of employment 
until it now covers employment, education, public accommodations and to a lesser 
degree, housing. The procedure for handling complaints is the same in every instance 
and to me the most important part of it is the conference period. The law provides 
that when a complaint is made it is assigned to one commissioner who becomes the 
investigating commissioner. \V'ith the assistance of a field representative he gets infor- 
mation about the complaint from both the complainant and respondent. When the 
investigating commissioner makes his decision, he may of course dismiss the complaint 
for lack of probable cause, but assuming he decides discrimination has taken place he 
asks for an equitable settlement. This settlement probably will mean that the com- 
plainant will get the job or house or whatever is necessary to correct what he has 
been unjustly denied. 

Because the law provides for this initial period of conference, conciliation and 
persuasion (I quote the words of the law) it is often interpreted as being soft. On the 
contrary I believe the provision for this conference period makes it impossible to talk 
with and hopefully persuade the unconvinced — a rare opportunity because usually we 
talk with people who agree with us. 

We have been very successful in this conference period as our case record attests. 
The investigating commissioner first invites the cooperation of the respondent and if 
he fails to get it the case is then by law referred to the other two commissioners for a 
public hearing. 

Incidentally, during the conference period we have asked for and received com- 
pensatory damages in other than employment cases and a written promise of future 
cooperation is almost routine. 

It is no surprise to me that all our cases except seven have been settled in the 
conference period. Few people in my opinion, unless enraged, would resist the polite 
pressure of this period in favor of a public hearing before a distinguished lawyer 
representing the Commission and a court stenographer performing that miracle of 
recording every syllable. 



28 



I am surprised that we do not receive more complaints from individuals. This sur- 
prise holds for the statistical records of all commissions. 

I have always hoped that groups which have asked for surveys would first promote 
the application of interested individuals. I recall such a request about surveying 
banks, which we did, but first asked couldn't just one person be found who would 
apply to a bank and see what would happen. To my knowledge no one did. 

This is not in any way to decry surveys and studies. ^Vhen our field representatives 
are not busy investigating complaints of discrimination we have them make surveys 
and studies because we realize much good can be accomplished in that manner. 

It is my belief that as important as the law itself, is the manner in which it is ad- 
ministered. We try very hard to be both fair and firm. 

Another very wise provision in our law is the demand that the Commission carry 
on a twofold duty — to administer the law and conduct an educational program. I 
wish I had time to outline this educational phase but it would take too long. I do want 
to acknowledge the great help our nine Councils give us in this educational work and 
the help received from many other groups as well. 

LEGISLATION RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION, 

41 TREMONT STREET, BOSTON 8, NOVEMBER 6, 1963 

The Honorable Kevin H. White, Secretary of the Commonwealth, State House 
Boston 33, Massachusetts. 

Dear Sir: In accordance with the provisions of General Laws, chapter 30, sections 35 
and 33A, as amended, I have the honor to submit three bills embodying legislation 
recommended. These drafts have been submitted to the Counsel for the House o£ 
Representatives as required by law. 

The recommendations are as follows: 

1. An Act changing the name of a Commission from the Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination to the Massachusetts Commission for Human Rights. 

The Commission believes that the proposed change in title will reflect more accu- 
rately than does the current title of the Commission its affirmative duties and functions 
within its sphere of jurisdiction. Similar commissions in other states have indicated 
that the proposed name enjoys popular support and promotes understanding of the 
function of the Commission within the community aflEected. 

2. An Act modifying the powers of the Court in certain actions arising under 
Chapter 15 IB of the General Laws. 

The power to issue temporary restraining orders in appropriate cases has always 
been considered a matter for the exercise of sound judicial discretion. The limitations 
on this discretion which the common law imposes have impeded the effective enforce- 
ment of the fair practices laws. The Commission believes that adequate protections 
against indiscriminatory issuance of temporary restraining orders is inherent in the 
requirement that such orders be issued only by a Justice of the Superior Court. 

3. An Act exempting certain housing accommodations from the provisions of the 
Massachusetts Fair Practices Laws. 

The Commission believes that the fair practices laws were not intended to apply to- 
the leasing of housing accommodations with the household of the lessor nor does it 
believe that the law ought so to invade the prerogative of a householder. The pro- 
posed act will clarify the jurisdictional effectiveness of the Commission in this regard- 
Respectfully submitted, 
(Mrs. ) Mildred H. Mahoney, Chairman-. 



29 



COUNCIL ACTIVITIES— 1963 

Chapter 151B of the General Laws, Section 3, Paragraph 8, empowers the Commis- 
sion "To create such advisory agencies and conciliation councils ... as in its judg- 
ment will aid in effectuating the purpose of this chapter, . . . Such councils shall be 
composed of representative citizens serving without pay. . . ." 

All Councils during 1963 devoted a large measure of their attention first to promot- 
ing S350 which when passed by the Legislature became Chapter 197 of the Acts of 
1963. After its passage they assisted in spreading information concerning its coverage. 

Another section of this report gives a detailed history of this most comprehensive 
housing law. 

All Councils were also concerned with cases, investigations, and studies originating 
in their area and their disposition. 

Since the Councils are the Commission's closest contacts and are definitely and 
importantly involved in its educational work it is necessary that they keep in touch 
with all Commission activities and stand ready to assist with advice and sponsorship. 
Their responsibility does not, however, extend to the processing of complaints. 

ADVISORY COUNOIL ON HOUSING 

The most recently formed council — ^The Advisory Council on Housing has met 
frequently during 1963. Mr. Robert E. Segal, Chairman of the Steering Committee 
was ap|X)inted by the Commission as Chairman of the Council as well as Chairman 
of the Steering Committee. This Council, as its name indicates, is chiefly concerned 
with housing and played a major role in securing the passage of S350 and later in the 
distribution of the Housing Guide, a copy of which appears in this report. This guide 
is being sent out by the Board of Registration and Real Estate Brokers and Salesmen 
when licenses are reviewed. It has been printed in the real estate journals and in 
many cases accompanied by editorials. In fact, every member of the Council has 
heli>ed in its distribution. Slightly under 86,000 copies have been circulated. 

Some of the topics discussed at Council meetings have been: 

1. Discussion of effects upon ultimate solution of fair housing problems of picket- 
ing, demonstrations, testing or sit-in tactics by private groups. 

2. Legislative proposals: 

a. Director of research 

b. Director of education and public relations 

c. Funds for the printing of at least one half million Housing Guides for 
distribution by the banking industry. 

d. Funds for radio and TV spot announcements 

e. Elimination of three day notice requirement in injunctive relief procedure. 

f. Changing name of MCAD 

g. Exemptions from coverage by chapter 197 of a family situation. Family be- 
ing defined as: (a) a person occupying a dwelling and maintaining a house- 
hold either alone or with not more than four boarders, roomers or lodgers; 
or (b) two or more persons occupying a dwelling either living together and 
maintaining a common household or living together and maintaining a 
common household with not more than four boarders, roomers or lodgers. 
A "boarder" "roomer" or "lodger" residing with a family means a person 
living within the household who pays a consideration for such residence 
and does not occupy such a space within the household as an incident of 
employment therein. 

The Advisory Council on Housing advocated and urged the MCAD to withdraw 
f and g. The MCAD on December 20 decided to request lease to withdraw f and g. 

BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL 

At a Council meeting, Mr. Fleissing, an expert on urban renewal was quoted as 
acknowledging his appreciation of a conference with representatives of the Council. 
He said it was his first experience of this type and he welcomed such interest. 

The great problem that faces urban renewal is to provide low rent housing that is 
safe, sanitary, and decent. In the area of Pittsfield this would replace housing that has 



30 



rented for as little as §20.00 a month. Some subsidy seems inevitable. Father Cashin, 
Mr. Rosenfield and Mr. Sass volunteered to serve with Mr. Hine on a committee to 
keep in touch with urban housing developments. 

The Council felt a survey of employment in small firms might stimulate more Negro 
employment as these control present marginal and entrance employment. The Com- 
mission submitted a questionnaire for Council approval. The questionnaire was to be 
mailed out and when the replies came in it would be determined what type of follow 
up was adviseable. 

70 companies out of over 200 replied to the first mailing. The second mailing 
brought answers from all but 50. These 50 will be called upon by a Field Representa- 
tive and in some instances Council members may assist by telephone calls or confer- 
ences. A major benefit has been the important increase in knowledge of employment 
law among Pittsfield area employers. 

In reply to a question directed to the Council an investigation was made as to the 
manner in which Meroke Maids, an affiliate of Lucky Star Employment Agency, paid 
off their indebtedness. It w^as reported that they paid 40% of their first month 
w^ages ($150.00 a month) to the employer who in turn pays the agency in order to 
discharge travel and incidental expenses. In addition to $150.00 a month, board, lodg- 
ing and uniforms are provided. 

The Council looks forward to cooperating with the newly established housing and 
Employment Committees in the Berkshire Branch of the N.A.A.C.P. 

In view of the age of the last survey of GE it was suggested that inquiry be made 
as to Negro participation in current apprenticeship training programs there and else- 
where. 

BOSTON COUNCIL 

Judge Elwood S. McKenney, who for years was a member of the Commission, en- 
listed the interest of the Council in suggestions, especially in one which had in mind 
to curb delinquency in the Roxbury area. He hoped that Boston businessmen would 
be able to supply part time work to young people who in turn would spend a portion 
of this income to outfit themselves for supervised sport — Little League activities, etc. 

Mr. Hubert Connor, Director of Division of Apprenticeship Training, State Depart- 
ment of Labor and Industr)' submitted a report of the Apprentice Information Center 
proposed for Massachusetts, the prototype of which is located at the Bureau of Em- 
ployment Security, in Washington, D. C. 

The Apprentice programs, if they are to be approved by the Federal Bureau must 
contain the non-discriminatory clause as provided by President Kennedy's Executive 
Order. 

The Division of Employment Security will assign personnel to the Apprentice In- 
formation Center — Aptitude testing will be given to those applying for apprenticeship. 

Mr. Connor spoke of pre-apprenticeship training courses now given at Freedom 
House by skilled Negro mechanics. 

CAPE COD COUNCIL 

Following its usual custom the Cape Cod Council presented at its annual meeting 
a series of success reports indicating cooperation that had resulted in progress. Four 
council members reported: 

Charles Jacoby of the Board of Realtors 

Mrs. Lilliam Olsen, Treasurer of the Hyannis Cooperative Bank 
John Rosario; Mid-Cape Jay-cees 

Thomas F. McKeon, Executive Secretary of the Hyannis Board of Trade 
Mr. McKeon said that in the past year the Board has placed over 300 boys and girls 

regardless of race, color or religious creed. 

Mr. Lee Kozol and Mr. Alfred Halper were guests at the meeting and stressed that 

it was imperative that real estate brokers all agree to abide by S350 w^hich w^as to 

become Chapter 197. 

Mrs. Ruth Williams announced that she would retire in the fall. This announcement 
caused the deepest regret from Council and Commission members. Her report to the 
group as Field Representative assigned to the Cape area was again illustrative of the 
fine work she has done and the close touch she has kept on all Cape activities that 
relate to intergroup respect and good will. She will be greatly missed. 



31 



NEW BEDFORD COUNCIL 

The NeAv Bedford Council has been most interested in housing and employment 
problems. An informal study of housing opportunities for Negros was reported at 
the Spring meeting. Ads for housing were checked and a telephone follow up was 
started. The question asked over the telephone was usually "do you object to renting 
to Negroes or Cape Verdeans." The results were very disappointing. Council members 
felt this approach would be improved upon and that a personal appearance was more 
desirable. 

The marked interest in employment resulted in a Council request, that the Chair- 
man appoint a Committee, not necessarily limited to Council members, but one that 
could contact employers and discuss with them the beneficial effects that would derive 
from the visable employment of more Negroes. At present many young people feel 
that in order to get ahead they must leave New Bedford. 

The following Committee was appointed and approved by the Council: 

Fermino J. Spencer, Chairman 

John W. Campbell 

Rev. Paul L. Moore 

Franklin M. Nipper 

Joseph F. Vera 

William J. Winsper 

NORTH SHORE COUNCIL 
The North Shore Council did not meet in the Spring because Chairman Kozlowski 
had resigned after many years of devoted service and a new Chairman had not been 
I appointed by the Commission. During the summer, the Commission secured the ac- 
t ceptance of John M. Lilly, General Secretary' of Lynn Y.M.C.A. and a Council member 
I to serve as Chairman for a term, which he specified, of not more than two years. He is 
organizing a series of public forums on Housing, Employment and Education. The 
first of these open meetings will be held in February 1964 on Discrimination in Hous- 
ing. 

STATE ADVISORY COUNCIL 
The advice of the State Advisory Council was sought on the best means for publiciz- 
ing the new housing law; on what action to take regarding a bill submitted by the 
Civil Service Commission to have their applications and other records exempted from 
the provisions of the fair employment law; what action might be taken hopefully to 
maintain our Boston office at 41 Tremont Street; should the Commission seek to with- 
draw bills H20 and H22; w^hat would be an adequate figure to request for redecorating 
the office and providing for a Springfield office and finally any recommendation they 
might wish to make for a new position — Supervisor of Research. 

SPRINGFIELD COUNCIL 

Members of the Springfield Council were chiefly interested during the year in the 
problem of housing and the possibility of establishing a branch office in Springfield. 
Such an office would be the first office set up in addition to the main office in Boston. 
It would mark, in a sense, a division of the State with responsibility up to Springfield 
in the sphere of the Boston office and from Springfield west the Springfield office 
would probably process most of the complaints arising in that area. 

The Real Estate Association and Springfield Home Builders Association have been 
in touch with the Council. The Council chairman spoke to the Board of Realtors 
using "Property Values and Race" as a basis for his talk. He made four very telling 
points illustrating what is gained w^hen the law is obeyed: it is an act of good citizen- 
ship; it is the moral thing to do; the law is complied with; it is good business because 
it provides a larger clientele. 

WORCESTER COUNCIL 
A study of new housing being built in Worcester showed only one builder construct- 
ing ten or more contiguous units. 1,310 building permits had been issued, 379 for new 
: home construction. After July 1 when Chapter 197 became effective all housing except 
a two family house in which the owner lives would come under the housing law. 



32 



The speaker's panel made up of Mrs. Daniel Farber, Miss Anna Mays and Rev. 
Michael P. Bafaro have had a very successful year and have spoken to at least fifteen 
groups at Churches, service clubs, colleges and associations of young people. Although 
Mrs. Farber, Miss Mays and Father Bafaro have had the most speaking engagements 
the members of the Council have expressed an interest that was most gratifying. 

On July 1, the first day the new housing laAv became effective, and at the initial 
suggestion of the Social Action Committee of the Pilgrim Church representatives from 
twenty-seven groups met at the City Council Chambers to discuss the provisions of 
the law. The Council Chairman presided and conducted the question period. The 
Commission Chairman spoke on the law. 

Mr. Casale and Mr. Levine of the Division of Employment Security stand ready to 
assist job applicants and advise on retraining opportunities. Mr. Leonard Toney of 
IBM has been looking for interested people to test for aptitude. A High School 
Diploma is not necessary but native ability is and this can be revealed by testing. Our 
Council members have assisted Mr. Toney. 

It was suggested that the MCAD early in 1964 investigate a rumor that some 
hospitals insist that at least two colored girls register in Sdhools of Nursing. 

LIST OF COUNCIL MEMBERS 
State Advisory Council Membership 

John J. Desmond, Jr., Chairman, Former State Commissioner of Education 
Dr. Gordon W. Allport, Professor of Psychology, Harvard University 
Rt. Rev. Robert P. Barry, LL.D., St. Clement's Church, West Somerville 
Clarence Q. Berger, Dean of University Planning and Development, Brandeis 
University 

Charles C. Dasey, Retired Manager, Cunard White Star Line; Secretary Emeritus, 

Rotary Club of Boston 
Roland B. Gittelsohn, Rabbi, Temple Israel of Boston 

Dr. Owen B. Kiernan, Commissioner of Education, Commonwealth of Massachu- 
setts 

Henry M. Leen, Attorney, 31 Milk Street, Boston 

Rt. Rev. Anson Phelps Stokes, Jr., Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of 
Mass. 

Howard Thurman, Dean, Marsh Chapel, Boston University 

Benjamin A. Trustman, Senior Partner, Nutter, McClennen & Fish, Attorneys, 
75 Federal Street, Boston 

Regional Council Membership 

Berkshire County 

Nelson F. Hine, Chairman 

Bruno Aron, Proprietor, Sunnybank, Lenox 

Samuel E. Bloomberg, Attorney at Law 

Professor James M. Bums, Williams College 

J. Robert Busch, President, Berkshire Hills Conference 

Lincoln S. Cain, Attorney at Law 

Rev. Joseph P. Cashin, Executive Director, Catholic Youth Center, 26 Melville 

Street, Pittsfield 
Bruce Crane, President, Crane & Company, Inc., Dalton 
Dennis J. Duffin, Lenox 

David L. Gunn, Berkshire County Branch, NAACP 

G. B, Langford, Manager of Components Engineering, Ordnance Department 

General Electric Company, Pittsfield 
Albert F. Litano, Local No. 225, lUE-CIO, Pittsfield 
Hans K. Maeder, Director, The Stockbridge School, Interlaken 
Emil Metropole, Realtor 
Feland A. Nevers, D.D.S. 

William J. Nolan, Sprague Electric Company, North Adams 
Arthur B. Phinney, Unitarian Church, Pittsfield 
Miss L. Alberta Pierce, NAACP 



33 



Mrs. Henry N. Rollison, Pittsfield 

Jay C. Rosenfeld, Rosenfeld's Inc., Pittsfield 

Samuel Sass, Pittsfield 

Rabbi Sanford D. Shanblatt, Congregation Knesses Israel, 11 Wendell Avenue, 
Pittsfield 

Hon. Paul A. Tamburello, United States Commissioner 

Frank T. Walker, President, New England Regional Conference, NAACP 

LaFayette W. Walker, NA.A.CP, Pittsfield 

Boston 

Robert E. Segal, Chairman, Executive Director, Jewish Community Council of 

Metropolitan Boston 
Edward J. Barshak, Attorney at Law, 73 Tremont Street, Boston 
Gerald A. Berlin, Atty., N. E. Region American Jewish Congress, 72 Franklin St., 

Boston 

Mrs. Melnea A. Cass, Boston Branch NA.\CP 

George A. Coleman, President, Brokers Institute of the Greater Boston Real Estate 
Board 

Dr. Thomas J. Curtin, Director, Division of Civic Education, Massachusetts De- 
partment of Fxiucation 

Richard S. Dodd, VA & FHA Finance Manager, Campanelli Bros., Inc. 

Bertram A. Druker, Partner in the firm of John Druker & Son 

Maurice E. Frye, Jr., Street and Co., Inc.; President, Rental Housing Association 
of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board 

Alan Gartner, Chairman, Greater Boston CORE 

Marvin E. Gilmore, Jr., Realtor 

Reuben Goodman, Esq., 80 Federal St., Boston 

Alfred W. Halper, Home Builder 

Ray Hofford, Executive Vice President, Greater Boston Real Estate Board 

Rev. Wayne W. Horvath, Director, Department of Social Relations, Massachusetts 

Council of Churches 
M. Jacob Joslow, Ijcecutive Director, American Jewish Congress, N. E. Region 
Samuel Katz, Director, New England Region, American Jewish Committee 
Mrs. Helen Kistin, Research Associate, Joint Center for Urban Studies of M.I.T. 

and Harvard University, Chairman, Housing Advisory Research Committee 

of the Massachusetts Committee on Discrimination in Housing 
Sol Kolack, Executive Director, New England Office, Anti-Defamation League of 

of B'nai B rith 

Rabbi Samuel I. Korff, Rabbinical Court of the Associated Synagogues 
Lee H. Kozol, Assistant Attorney General, Director, Division of Civil Rights and 
Liberties 

Morris Kritzman, Vice Chairman, Mass. Committee on Discrimination in Housing 
John W. Kunhardt, Vice President, Hunneman & Co., Inc.; Director, Brokers 
Institute 

Luther Knight MacNair, Executive Secretary, Civil Liberties Union of Massachu- 
setts 

Robert McPeck, Executive Vice-President, Home Builders Association 
J. Westbrook McPherson, ACSW, Executive Director, Urban League of Greater 
Boston Inc. 

Edward C. Mendler, Jr., President of Fair Housing, Inc. 

Rev. John J. O'Brien, S.T.D., Chaplain, Catholic Interracial Council of Boston 
Malcolm E. Peobody, Chairman, of the Governor's Advisory Committee on Civil 
Rights 

George B. Pettengill, Fair Housing Federation of Greater Boston 
Myron C. Roberts, President, Greater Boston Real Estate Board, 24 School St., 
Boston 

L. Robert Rolde, Representing Rental Housing Association of Greater Boston 
Milton H. Shaw, President, Greater Boston Real Estate Board 

Arthur L. Singer, Jr., Assistant Dean of Social Science, Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology 



34 



Robert F. Smith, Builder 

Mrs. Muriel S. Snowden, Co-Director, Freedom House, Inc. 

John A. Sullivan, Executive Secretary, New England American Friends Service 

Committee, 130 Brattle Street, Cambridge 
A. J. Tambone, President, A. J. Tambone, Inc., Realtors 

Mrs. George S. Tattan, Supervisor of Social Service, Division of Immigration and 
Americanization 

William J. White, Managing Director, Brokers Institute of Greater Boston Real 
Estate Board 

Walter K. Winchester, Vice President, First Realty Company of Boston 
Raymond H. Young, Attorney at Law 

Boston 

Carl J. Gilbert, Chairman, The Gillette Company, Chairman of the Board 
Norman H. Abbott, Boston University, Director of Placement 

Julius Bernstein, Executive Secretary, Mass. AFL-CIO, Civil Rights Committee Re- 
gional Director, Jewish Labor Committee 
Frederic C. Church, Senior Partner, Boit, Dalton & Church 
John V. Connolly, Business Manager, Boston Photo Engravers' Union No. 3 
Hubert L. Connor, Director of Apprenticeship, Division of Apprentice Training 

Mass. Department of Labor and Industries 
Norris G. Davis, Funeral Director, Davis Funeral Home 

John E. Deady, Secretary-Treasurer, Boston Building and Construction Trades 
Council 

William H. Eastman, Second Vice President, John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance 
Company 

Stephen W, Fardy, Executive Secretary, Boston Allied Printing Trades Council 
Harold D. Hodgkinson, Chairman, William Filene's Sons Company 
Ernest A. Johnson, Vice President, Massachusetts Building Congress 
James H. Mumma, Director of Personnel Administration, Raytheon Company, 
Lexington 

C. K. Neilson, Vice President — Personnel, New England Telephone &: Telegraph 

Company, 185 Franklin Street, Boston 
Thomas A. Pappas, President, C. Pappas Company, Inc. 

Leonard T. Peters, Executive Vice President, Peters Employment Service, Inc. 
Sidney R. Rabb, Chairman of the Board, Stop & Shop, Inc. 
Paul T, Rothwell, Chairman of the Board, Bay State Milling Company 
Arthur Seserman, Executive Vice President, Boston Branch National Metal Trades 
Association 

John S. Sullivan, Vice President, National Shawmut Bank of Boston, 40 Water 

Street, Boston 
F. Frank Vorenberg, President, Gilchrist Company 

Leslie E. Woods, Labor Advisor and Consultant, Raytheon Company, Lexington 
Allan Ralph Zenowitz, Management Consultant, 37 Beacon Street, Boston 

Cape Cod 

Dr. Lewis Paul Todd, Chairman, Editor "Social Education" 

Dr. Irving H. Bartlett, Director, Cape Cod Community College, Hyannis 

James J. Bento, Attorney at Law 

Harvard H. Broadbent, Superintendant of Schools, Hyannis 
Anthony Casella, Chairman, Yarmouth School Committee 
Moncrieff M. Cochran, Sea Pines School, Brewster 

Norman H. Cook, Executive Secretary, Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce 
Manuel Corey, Jr., Falmouth 

Charles A. Coyle, Executive Secretary, Massachusetts Hotel Association V ' 

Rt. Rev. Leonard J. Daley, Pastor, St. Francis Xavier Church I 
Miss Eugenia Fortes, Hyannis 

Mrs. Roma M. Freeman, Physical Education & Science Teacher, Barnstable Junior 

High School 
Joseph Gomes, Osterville 



35 



Arthur C. Goode, Vice President, Retail Board of Trade, Hyannis 

Jack Graiver, Falmouth 

Harold L, Hayes, Jr., Attorney at Law 

John T. Hough, Falmouth Publishing Company 

Mrs. John T. Hough, Falmouth 

Joseph Indio, Editor and Publisher, "Nantucket Town Crier" 
Charles W. Jacoby, President, Cape Cod Board of Realtors 
Allen F. Jones, Contractor, Barnstable 

James H. Kennedy, Employment Office Manager, Mass. Division of Employment 

Security Plymouth 
John C. Linehan, Principal, Barnstable Junior High School 
Thomas F. McKeon, Executive Secretary, Hyannis Board of Trade 
Harry S. Merson, Superintendent of Schools, Falmouth 
Mrs. Harry S. Merson, Falmouth 

Ben Morton, Secretary, Chamber of Commerce, Martha's Vineyard 

Norman Nunes, Supervisor, Hood Milk Company 

Mrs. Lillian Olson, Treasurer, Hyannis Cooperative Bank 

John Pena, Contractor, Member State Board of Agriculture, West Falmouth 

Mrs. John Pena, Special Policewoman, Falmouth Police Department 

Howard Penn, Former President, Cape Cod Jaycees 

Rabbi Jerome Pine, Cape Cod Synagogue, Hyannis 

Thomas Roderick, Teen-Age Group coordinator, Hyannis 

John Rosario, Member Junior Chamber of Commerce 

Rev. Carl Foaring Schultz, D.D., The Federated Church of Hyannis 

Miss Mary G. Shea, "Dennis-Yarmouth Register," Yarmouthport 

Frank Simmons, Sr., Guest House owner, Falmouth 

Warren Sperl, Assistant Treasurer, Cape and Vineyard Electric Company 

Richard F. Tobin, Public Relations 

Mrs. Lewis Paul Todd, Truro 

Mrs. Helen M. Webster, Realtor, West Yarmouth 

Harold H. Williams, Chairman, State Advisory Committee on Service to Youth 
Ruth E. Williams, Advisor)- Council, \Vomen's Division, State Department of 
Commerce 

Mrs. Minna Witt, Proprietor, Admiral Hotel, Hyannis 

New Bedford 

Fred W. Steele, Chairman, Legislative Agent and Counsel for Textile Mills of 
Mass. 

Mrs. Valentina N. Almeida, Princial Clerk, City Auditor's Office 
Joseph Baldwin, Employment Manager, Division of Employment Security, New 
Bedford 

Samuel Bamet, Special Justice, Third District Court of Bristol County 
Henry A. Bartkiewicz, Attorney at Law, Secretary, Polish Relief Committee of 
New Bedford 

James M. Buckley, Director of Adult Education, New Bedford Public Schools 
George E. Carignan, International Representative, Textile Workers' Union of 

America AFL-CIO 
Joaquim A. Custodio, Lancashire Corporation, New Bedford 

Duncan A. Dottin, Social Worker, Division of Child Guardianship, New Bedford 
Mrs. William S. Holmes, Jr., Director and Past President, Council of Women's 

Organizations of Greater New Bedford 
Harold Hurwitz, Attorney at Law 

Hyman Krivoff, President and Treasurer, Dartmouth Finishing Corporation, New 
Bedford 

Miss Ruth B. McFadden, Former Superintendent of Schools, New Bedford 

Joao R. Rocha, Newspaper Publisher and Editor, "Portuguese Daily News" 

Marshall Sawyer, Teacher, Wareham High School 

Fermino N. Spencer, New Bedford School Department 

Mrs. Dorothy B. Stahre, Principal, New Bedford Public Schools 

Joseph A. Sylvia, Jr., Register of Deeds, New Bedford 



36 



The Hon. August C. Taveira 

Alfred R. Thackeray, Executive Secretary, New Bedford Board of Commerce 
Mrs. Xenophon Thomas, New Bedford 

Philip F. Tripp, Executive Director, New Bedford Housing Authority 

William Joseph Winsper, III, Assistant Director of Guidance and Placement New 

Bedford High School 
Mrs. William Wood, Secretary of New Bedford Board of Real Estate 
Donald Zeman, Attorney at Law 

Mrs. Anthony Zielinski, Women's Republican Club of New Bedford Executive 
Board 

Rabbi Bernard H. Ziskind, Tifereth Israel Synagogue 

North Shore 

John M. Lilly, Chairman, General Secretary, Lynn YMCA 
Alfred A. Albert, Real Estate Broker 

Anthony Athanas, President, Hawthorne Restaurants, Lynn-Swampscott 
Samuel P. Backman, Realtor, Chairman, Industrial Commission of Lynn 
Mrs. Mary Finn Berlyn, Supervisor, Adult Civic Education, Lynn Public Schools 
Louis L. Brin, Editorial StafE, The Jewish Advocate 

S. Matthew Carrington, Sr., President of Greater Lynn Council of Churches 
Attorney Charles Cronis, 14 Central Avenue, Lynn 

Thomas J. Curtin, Director, Division of Civic Education, Massachusetts Depart- 
ment of Education 
Mrs. Solomon M. Feldman, Jewish Community Federation 
Peter Gamage, Publisher, "Lynn Item" 
Abraham Glovsky, Senior Partner, Glovsky & Glovsky 
Mrs. Charles F. Haywood, Chief Librarian, Lynn Public Library 
Francis L. Keane, School Adjustment Counselor, Lynn Public Schools 
Henry Kozlowski, Treasurer, Jackson & Phillips, Inc. 
Herbert D. Marsh, President, Security Trust Company, Lynn 
Lawrence G. McGinn, Superintendent of Schools, Lynn School Department 
Mrs. Marcia L. Memmott, Director, Women's Division, Mass. Department of 

Commerce 
Mrs. William H. Nesbit, Lynn 

Theodore Regnante, Chairman, Board of Trustees of Lynn Public Library 
Rev. Edgar D. Romig, Rector, St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, Lynn, President 

Greater Lynn Council of Churches 
Armand J. St. Laurent, Funeral Director 
Rabbi Steven S. Schwarzschild, Temple Beth El, Lynn 
Rt. Rev. Cornelius T. H. Sherlock, Pastor, St. Mary's Parish, Lynn 
Dr. William D. Washington, Lynn 

William A. Welch, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Mass. Association of School 
Superintendents 

Springfield 

Roger L. Putnam, Chairman, Chairman of the Board, Package Machinery Company 
Mr. Richard B. Anderson, Public Affairs Committee, Community Council of 

Greater Springfield 
Archie Burack, Treasurer, Industrial Buildings Corporation, Chicopee 
John Douglas Cummings, Chairman, Minority Housing Committee, Springfield 
Miss Clarace E. Gait, Head Psychiatric Social Worker, Child Guidance Clinic of 

Springfield 

George C. Gordon, Real Estate and Insurance 

Mrs. Richard J. Griffin, Jr., President of Civic Association Presidents 

Miss Alice L. Halligan, Executive Secretary, Springfield Adult Education Council 

Jewell Hodges, Real Estate Broker 

Miss Olive K. Horrigan, Retired Director of Adult Education, Springfield School 

Department 
Raymond T. King, Attorney at Law 
Robert G. Little 



37 



Bernard H. McMahon, President, Springfield Five Cents Savings Bank 

Mrs. Roger L. Putnam, President of Catholic Scholarship for Negroes, Inc. 

Frederick B. Robinson, Director, Museum of Fine Arts, Springfield 

James J. Shea, President, Milton Bradley Company 

Charles ViVenzio, Financial Secretary, Local No. 202, AFL-CIO 

Mrs. Malcolm C. Webber 

Rev. D. Edward Wells, Pastor, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Springfield 

Worcester 

Andrew B. Holstrom, Chairman, Consultant, Norton Company 
Rev. Michael Paul Bafaro, Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester 
Mrs. Mary L. Boyd, NAACP Executive Board 

Lyscom A. Bruce, Retired Executive Secretary, Community Chest and Council of 
Greater Worcester 

Rev. Hubert C. Callaghan, S.J., Director, Institute of Industrial Relations, College 

of the Holy Cross 
Miss S. Virginia Carrier, Executive Director, Worcester YWCA 
Daniel J. Casale, District Superintendent, Mass. Division of Employment Security 
Donald S. Donnelly, Chief Supervisor, Mass. Division of Employment Security 
Clayton T. Drown, Accounting Supervisor, Norton Company 
Mrs. Linwood M. Erskine, Member Worcester Area Committee on Aging 
Mrs. Daniel Farber 

The Hon. Joseph Goldberg, Central District Court, Worcester 

Frank E. Hayes, Executive Secretary, Board of U. S. Civil Service Examiners, 

U. S. Post Office, Worcester 
Dr. Ralph L. Holland, Executive Secretary, Greater Worcester Area Council of 

Churches 

John B. Howarth, Acting Postmaster, Worcester 

Dr. Howard B. JefEerson, President, Clark University, Worcester 

Rabbi Joseph Klein, Temple Emanuel, Worcester 

Miss Clover G. Knowlton, Chairman, Commission on Christian Social Concerns, 

Wesley Methodist Church 
John S. Laws, Principal, Dix Street School, Worcester 

Miss Anna Mays, Life member of NAACP, New England Regional Conference 
Philip M. Morgan, President, Morgan Construction Company 
Mrs. Stanley W. Norwood, The Bancroft School 

Walter A. Olson, Executive Director, Family Service Organization of Worcester 

REPRESENTATIVE SURVEYS SPONSORED BY MCAD 

The surveys listed below were conducted under the sponsorship, sometimes joint, 
sometimes individual, of the Commission and the regional advisory councils. 

While the Commission and its staff have the responsibility of supervising such surveys 
throughout, the advice and assistance of the council in launching the surveys and 
channeling them into the appropriate public uses continue to be of inestimatable value 
to the Commission's educational program. 

A number of these surveys, though mentioned only once, represents continuing 
activities by the Commission. Such abiding concerns of the Commission have included 
surveys in public housing, resort advertising, and newspaper classified advertising. 

Other studies, such as those in the metal and building trade took several years to 
complete, but are listed only for the years when they were installed. 

1946 Study of classified advertisements in newspapers across the state for violation 
of FEP statute. 

1947 Survey of employment discrimination in the A.F.L. and C.I.O. labor organi- 
zations, as revealed by constitutions and by-laws. 

1948 First industry wide survey of employment practices of 55 business concerns, 
representing 10,700 employees, to determine relative numbers of minority 
group workers employed and job description and skills involved. 

1949-1950 Survey, based on questionnaire with follow-up interviews, of 58 Boston em- 
ployment agencies, to determine whether increased numbers of minority 



38 



group applicants, particularly Negroes, were seeking positions as a result of 
the FEP law, and degree of success in placing thera in jobs. 
Survey of employment and admissions policies of 36 hospitals in Metropolitan 
Boston based on questionnaire. 

Surveys of employment practices in Worcester and New Bedford areas to 
determine number of minority group workers employed and of skills involved. 

1950- 195 1 Surveys of policies of tenant selection of 84 housing authorities toward elimi- 

nating recognizable patterns of segregation in public housing. 
Surveys of advertising material of 350 resort hotels, to determine use of sub- 
terfuges of language designed to thwart public accommodations statute. 
Survey of newspaper classified advertisements, to determine use of limitations 
expressed in violation of the "age" section of the FEP law. 

1951- 1952 "Public opinion" poll on attitudes of 800 companies, labor unions and em- 

ployment agencies on the effect of the FEP law on employment and the 
effectiveness of the MCAD as both an enforcement and educational agency. 
Survey of 222 school communities on violation in teacher-application forms. 

1952- 1953 Industi7-wide survey of apprentice training in the metal trades available to 

minority group members. 184 firms directly interviewed on "formal" "in- 
formal" and "on-the-job" apprenticeship opportunities. 50 follow-up inter- 
views to seek intensification of existing programs. 

Public opinion survey of membership of 4 minority group, civil rights 
agencies, to ascertain extent of awareness of discriminatory practices and 
willingness to report such practices to MCAD. 

1953- 1954 Initial step in an industry-wide survey of apprentice training opportunities 

in the building trades. 35 Boston building trade unions directly interviewed. 
(105 additional firms subsequently visited.) 

1954- 1955 Housing Authority surveys, to determine degree of minority group occupancy 

and of integration of the races. 

North Shore surveys, to determine employment patterns and policies of health 
and welfare agencies. 95 business firms and all social agencies interviewed. 

1955- 1957 Surveys of banking, insurance and printing industries in Western Massachu- 

setts, to determine employment patterns and policies vis-a-vis minority groups, 

1957- 1958 Surveys of placement of graduates of printing trades and of programs of Rox- 

bury Memorial High School, Boston Trade School and Rindge Technical 
School, Cambridge, to determine relative success in placement of minority 
group graduates. 

Study of placement of applicants between ages of 45-65 by employment 
agencies, both public and private, to explore employment patterns affecting 
this age group. 

Survey of barber shops and beauty salons, to determine compliance with 
public accommodations law. 

1958- 1959 Survey of insurance application forms issued by 300 insurance companies 

licensed to operate in the Commonwealth, to determine extent of violations 
of civil rights laws. 

Study of effect of pension plans upon hiring of older workers. 

Survey of 85 police departments to determine extent of their knowledge of 

jurisdiction and operation of the MCAD. 

1959- 1960 Continued examination of application forms, to determine extent of viola- 

tions with 602 employers interviewed. 

Survey of admissions policies of 62 schools of Nursing with emphasis on 
admissions patterns for minority group members. 

1961 Survey of 47 private housing developments, to ascertain existence of discrimi- 

nation policies and extent of integration and problems encountered by 
minority group occupants. 

Survey of distribution of Negro pupils in public schools in 6 cities, to ascer- 
tain extent of integration. 

Survey of 190 department stores and retail outlets in Greater Boston, to 



39 



detei-mine nature of employment problems of persons in the 45 to 65 age 
groups. 

1962 Apprentice Training Survey in the Boston area, with inquiries directed to 
138 unions, to determine number of Negroes currently indentured as appren- 
tices and job skills involved. 

Study in a initial step of policies and practices of 175 independent secondary 
schools, with 91 interviewed in 1962. 

1963 Survey of approximately 216 small firms in the Pittsfield area, to determine 
extent of Negro employment and their job classifications. 

Survey of twenty-seven Nursing Homes in Springfield regarding admission 
policies. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

November 10, 1946 to December 31, 1963 



Complaints: 

Initiated and received 2540 

Closed after formal hearing 8 

Closed after investigation and conference 1407 

Closed for lack of probable cause 865 

Closed for lack of jurisdiction 93 

Withdrawn 113 

Pending investigation and conference 51 

Noticed for formal hearing 3 

Investigations ^VITHOUT Complaint: 

Initiated by the Commission 943 

Closed after investigation and conference 699 

Closed for lack of probable cause 226 

Transferred to complaint 9 

Pending investigation and conference 9 

Regulating and Supervising Age Amendment: 

Initiated by the Commission 1106 

Closed after investigation and conference 1053 

Closed for lack of probable cause 45 

Pending investigation and conference 8 

TOTAL 4589 

Nature of Complaints and Investigations: 

Based upon alleged color discrimination 1867 

Based upon alleged religious discrimination 391 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of race 71 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of national origin 472 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of ancestry 52 

Based upon alleged discrimination because of age 1736 

Type of Complaints and Investigations: 

Against employers 3330 

Against emplo\Tnent agencies 150 

Against Labor unions 37 

Others 67 

Public Accommodations 386 

Newspaper Advertising 145 

Public Housing 17 

Publicly Assisted Housing 28 

Private Housing 400 

Fair Educational Practices 29 



40 



SUMMARY 1963 

ANNUAL REPORT MCAD 

359 matters involving discrimination. 
735 business concerns interviewed. 

108 notices of violation of employment applications corrected. 
1,153 places of public accommodation surveyed. 

27 public housing authorities studied for tenant selection. 
38 private housing developments studied. 
1,146 persons visited Commission office. 
55 speaking engagements. 
44 conferences. 
216 hiring and employment policy surveys in Pittsfield. 
27 admission policy surveys in Springfield nursing homes. 
7 indoctrination of newly opened educational institutions with provisions of 
fair educational practices. 
5,000 Guides to Fair Housing pamphlets distributed in cooperation with the Board 

of Registration of Real Estate Brokers and Salesmen. 
0,000 Guides to Fair Housing pamphlets distributed through other sources. 



Public Document No. 163 

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 

ANNUAL REPORT 

of the 

Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination . 

January 1, 1964 to December 31, 1964 




C / 7 

. ^ Malcolm C. Webber, Chairman 
^ K> LL Ruth M. Batson, Commissioner 

Ben G. Shapiro, Commissioner 
John F. Albano, Commissioner 
Walter H. Nolan, Executive Secretary 

41 Tremont Street 1570 Main Street 

Boston, Massachusetts Springfield, Massachusetts 



Publication of this Document Appkoved by Alfred C. Holland, State Pukchasing Agent 
6M-6-65-941080 Estimated Cost Per Copy: $.107 



Public Document 



No. 163 



OIimummmMltly of Haaaarljufirtta 

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 

ANNUAL REPORT 

of the 

Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination. 

January 1, 1964 to December 31, 1964 




Malcolm C. Webber, Chairman 
Ruth M. Batson, Commissioner 
Ben G. Shapiro, Commissioner 
John F. Albano, Commissioner 
Walter H. Nolan, Executive Secretary 



41 Tremont Street 1570 Main Street 

Boston, Massachusetts Springfield, Massachusetts 



Publication of this Document Approved by Alfred C. Holiand, State Purchasing Agent 
6M-6-65-941080 , Estimated Cost Per Copy: $.107 



CjONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION . glATc HOUSE/ BOSTOM • ^ • • • • ^ 

COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP CHANGES 3 

SUMMARY COMMISSION ACTIVITIES 3 

SCOPE OF THE LAW 5 

PUBLIC HEARING 10 

PUBLIC HOUSING SURVEY STATISTICS 17 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 24 

LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION 24 

LEGISLATION FAVORED BY THE COMMISSION 26 

LEGISLATION OPPOSED BY THE COMMISSION 26 

FAIR EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES LAW 27 

UNIT OF STUDY, "DISCRIMINATION- 
DANGER TO DEMOCRACY" 27 

RESEARCH DIVISION 28 

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RULING 30 

MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT . 31 

COUNCIL LISTS 36 



A 

INTRODUCTION 

A Tribute To Mildred H. Mahoney 

In 1946, Mrs. Mildred H. Mahoney became the first Chairman of the Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination. Appointment to this sensitive position followed 
upon three years of duty as Executive Secretary of the Governor's Committee for 
Racial and Religious Understanding, On December 4, 1964, Mildred H. Mahoney 
concluded a distinguished career in the service of this Commonwealth. Eight Gov- 
ernors had called upon her to inculcate intergroup understanding, respect, and good 
will among the people of this Commonwealth. 

On November 16, 1964, a Special Study Commission was appointed by former 
Governor Endicott Peabody, to review the functions and policies of the Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination. We cannot think of a more fitting tribute to 
Mildred H. Mahoney than the following statement which is taken from the final 
report of the Special Study Commission: — "One who devotes eighteen years of life 
to public service is owed the gratitude of the community. But the community's debt 
to Mrs. Mahoney is owed, not merely for length of service, but particularly for the 
signal distinction and devotion of her service. The general acceptance of the anti- 
discrimination laws of the Commonwealth by all responsible segments of the com- 
munity, is due, in no small measure, to her persevering efforts. In very important 
ways Mrs. Mahoney 's accomplishments are the fruits of her occupational philosophy; 
believing in the efficacy of conciliation, she taught violators of the law many things 
they might not have learned in more formal and austere surroundings; and by setting 
such a high standard of personal integrity and civic conscience, she has forced all 
of us to re-examine our own standards. For these lessons, still to be appreciated 
fully, we are — all of us — in her debt." 

We who have had the privilege of working with her, know her quiet dignity, 
unflinching courage and ability. Few, if any, have more efEectively taught the evils 
of race prejudice. 

There is an honored place in the American way of life for those who have the 
gift for bringing conciliation within a framework of law and order. 

COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP CHANGES 

On 8 December 1964 and on 11 December two important changes were made in 
the Commission Membership. 

John F. Albano of Longmeadow, on 8 December 1964, was appointed a member of 
the Commission. Mr. Albano is Manager of the Western Massachusetts District and 
Supervisor of Organization for New England and Upstate New York for the Inter- 
national Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. 

On 11 December 1964, Commissioner Malcolm C. Webber of Springfield was desig- 
nated Commission Chairman replacing Mrs. Mildred H. Mahoney of Winchester. 
Mr. Webber was originally appointed to the Commission on 4 December 1963. 

SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTIVITIES 

The nineteenth annual report includes the period from 1 January 1964 to 31 
December 1964. 

The Commission had before it for resolution 508 matters involving unlawful, 
discrimination based on race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry 
in the field of employment and discrimination based on race, creed, color, national 
origin or national ancestry in housing, places of public accommodations and admis- 
sions to educational institutions. 

Field representatives of the Commission interviewed 428 employers throughout the 
Commonwealth. The main impact of these interviews was to acquaint the employers 
with the provisions of the Fair Practices Law and their obligations and responsibilities 
under the statute. In addition, the employers were informed of the Commission's 
rulhigs and interpretations of the law. 



An examination was made of the employment application forms used by the 
employer and a review of the hiring policies in effect at the time of the interview. 

\V'here not on display the official poster of the Commission (Form CAD-5) was 
placed in a conspicuous area on the premises as required by law. 

Of the 428 employers interviewed fifty-nine (59) were found to be using employ- 
ment application forms which were in violation of the law. Twelve (12) employers 
inquired into and recorded the national origin (birthplace) of applicants. Three (3) 
employers made inquiry into the race or color of applicants and the remaining em- 
ployers, forty-four (44) in number, were making pre-employment inquiries into the 
age of applicants. 

All violations were eliminated and corrected forms put into use. 

The advertising material used by hotels, motels, guest houses and tourist homes 
were reviewed for possible violations of the Public Accommodations Law, Chapter 
272, Section 92A of the General Laws. In all, 1172 brochures were reviewed before 
and during the 1964 vacation season and not one unlawful advertising brochure was 
found. 

A study of the tenant selection programs and policies of twenty-seven (27) Public 
Housing Authorities was made to determine equal opportunities in housing regard- 
less of the applicant's race, color, creed or religion. 

As part of the study the number and names of the completed housing develop- 
ments within the jurisdiction and management of each Authority were recorded 
as well as the number of units to be built within the ensuing year. 

All forms and records made out by and for applicants for public housing were 
examined and lastly, a census of the non- white population in each development was 
obtained. These figures are reproduced in the section of this report entitled Public 
Housing Survey Statistics. 

With the cooperation of the Board of Registration of Real Estate Brokers and 
Salesmen 35 thousand copies of the Commission pamphlet "A Guide to the Fair 
Housing Law" are being distributed at the rate of 2 thousand per month. 

On 2 February 1964 a branch office has opened in Springfield to serve the citizens 
of \Vestern Massachusetts. 

One Commissioner, a field representative and a stenographer operated and worked 
out of this branch office. 

From the opening day to 31 December 1964 the Springfield branch office processed 
eighty-four (84) personally filed complaints and sixty-eight (68) Commission-initiated 
complaints. 

1590 persons visited the two Commission offices in Boston and Springfield to make 
inquiries concerning their rights and obligations under the provisions of the Civil 
Rights statutes. 

The Ethical Society of Boston donated 500 Car Cards for display on public trans- 
portation vehicles. 

As a public service, the advertising firm of O'Ryan and Batchelder donated Car 
Card space on more than 400 Metropolitan Transit Authority vehicles in the Greater 
Boston area. 

The public transportation systems of Springfield, Holyoke and Pittsfield donated 
space for the display of 100 cards for which the Commission is grateful. 

The Car Cards outlined the rights of minority groups to have equal opportunity 
in employment, housing, education as well as equal treatment in places of public 
accommodations. 

The Commission members and staff conducted 124 conferences and addressed 98 
business, civic, educational and social organizations. 

The Commission prepared and signed memoranda of agreements with the Presi- 
dent's Committee On Equal Employment Opportunity, President's Committee On 
Equal Opportunity In Housing and the Federal Housing Administration. 

In April of 1964 a Research Division was established. 

At the close of the reporting year the Research Division had designed and com- 
pleted a study of the hiring policy and employment pattern of five public utilities; 
an in-depth follow-up of ten closed housing complaints; two study designs completed 
relating to communications, and to contractual relations of state, city and town| 



5 



agencies to determine the degree of compliance of non-discriminatory clauses in 
contracts, and the completion of negotiations for a study of post-school employment 
of students from the Boston Vocational Schools. This study is to be co-sponsored with 
Johns Hopkins University under a federal grant. 

One of the field representatives was assigned to make a study of the problem of 
citizens, aged forty-five (45) to sixty-five (65), who, through no fault of their own, 
lose their job and try to find another. 

A preliminary report was completed and submitted to the Governor of the Com- 
monwealth and the Secretary of Labor. 

At the close of the year another new division was organized. This section is to be 
known as the Division of Community Relations. 

SCOPE OF THE LAW 

The following is a list of the questions the Commission is most frequently asked 
concerning the scope of the law. It hopes the answers will serve to inform the in- 
habitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of their rights, privileges and duties 
under the various sections of the law: 

What is the Purpose of the Fair Employment Practice Law? 
Its purpose is to prevent and eliminate practices of discrimination in employment 
because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry. 

When Did the Law Go Into Effect? 
August 21, 1946. 

Who Administers the Law? 
Four Commissioners, appointed by the Governor. 

What Is the Commission Empowered to Do? 

It is empowered to receive, investigate and pass upon complaints alleging discrim- 
ination in employment because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, 
age or ancestry; to hold hearings and subpoena witnesses. 

Does the Fair Employment Practice Law Apply Only to Hiring? 

No, it applies also to discharge, transfer, promotion, terms and privileges of 
employment, including unfair working conditions such as separation of facilities 
and segregation in employment. 

Are All Employers Subject to the Law? 
All employers with six or more employees, including the state and local govern- 
ments, are subject to the law. The law does not apply to clubs which are exclu- 
sively social or to fraternal, charitable, educational or religious associations which 
are not organized for private profit; nor does the law apply to any individual 
employed by his parents, spouse or children or engaged in domestic service. 

How Does the Law Effect Employment Agencies? 
It is unlawful for an employment agency: 

1. To ask questions before employment or to make any statement to a prospec- 
tive employer concerning the race, color, religious creed, national origin, 
age or ancestry of an applicant. 

2. To place advertisements for help or use application blanks which directly 
or indirectly express any limitation upon employment because of race, color, 
religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry of an applicant. 

3. To accept or process job orders from employers which limit or specify the 
race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry of an applicant. 

What Questions May Not Be Asked of an Applicant for Employment? 
Questions may not be asked concerning: 
Birthplace or that of relatives. 
Religious creed. 



6 



Color or complexion. 
Lineage or national origin. 

Places of residence of relatives of the applicant or their places of business out- 
side of the United States. 
Military experience in the service of a foreign country. 

Organizations of which the applicant is a member if their names indicate 

religion, race, national origin or ancestry. 
Age. 

Citizenship, which would indicate whether the applicant is naturalized or 
native-born; but the applicant may be asked if he is a citizen. 

May an Applicant Be Asked to Produce Military Discharge Papers, Naturalization 
Papers or a Birth Certificate Prior to Employment? 
No. 

May a Photograph Be Required Prior to Employment? 
No. 

Does the Law Tell an Employer Whom to Hire? 

No, but it does declare it to be unlawful for an employer to refuse to employ, 
or to discharge from employment any individual because of race, color, religious 
creed, national origin, age or ancestry. It does not restrict an employer from 
establishing occupational qualifications provided that they are applied equally 
to all persons. 

May Job Qualifications Include Personality and Appearance? 

Yes, depending on the job. But appearance cannot include color or racial 
characteristics. 

Suppose an Employer Is Willing to Hire Qualified Minority Group Workers But 

Cannot Because of Discriminatory Labor Union Practice? 

Complaints may be filed against labor organizations, since these organizations 
are subject to the Fair Employment Practice Law, when persons are denied full 
membership rights because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or 
ancestry. 

Suppose an Employer Desires to Hire Qualified Minority Group Members But 

Fears an Unfavorable Reaction From His Other Employees? 

A clear stand by the employer indicating that he intends to comply with the 
law and hire the most qualified workers regardless of their race, color, religious 
creed, national origin, age or ancestry will usually suffice. However, the provisions 
of the Fair Employment Practice Law can also be involved against employees 
attempting to obstruct the purposes of the law. 

Does the Fair Employment Practices Law Give Minority Group Members Any 

Special Privileges In Obtaining Employment? 

No, the purpose of the law is to afford all persons equal opportunities in 
employment regardless of race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or 
ancestry with the qualifications of the applicants being the sole test in selecting 
employees. 

If I File a Complaint Against My Employer, Might This Action Cause Me to 
Lose My Job Or to Be Otherwise Discriminated Against By Him? 

No, the law makes it a violation to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate 

against any person because he has filed a complaint. 

How Does the Law Affect Employees On the Job? 

It requires that wages, hours, use of rest room and restaurant facilities, etc., be 
afforded equally to all employees regardless of race, color, religious creed, national 
origin, age or ancestry. 



7 



Who May File A Complaint With The Commission? 
Any person claiming to be aggrieved because of an alleged unlawful practice; 
the Attorney General of the Commonwealth; an employer when his employees, 
or some of them, refuse or threaten to refuse to comply with the provisions of 
the law. The Commission itself may file a complaint whenever it has reason to 
believe any person has been or is engaging in an unlawful practice. 

What Is Meant By "An Aggrieved Person"? 
An aggrieved person is one who believes that his legal rights have been invaded 
because of discrimination in employment, education, public accommodations or 
housing. 

How May a Complaint Be Filed? 
Anyone wishing to file a complaint on charges of discrimination because of race, 
color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry must make a complaint 
in person or in writing which must be notarized. Upon request the staff of the 
Commission will assist a person in recording a complaint. 

Where Should a Complaint Be Filed? 
At the offices of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 41 Tremont 
Street, Boston or at the Springfield office of the Commission, 1570 Main Street, 
Springfield. 

Is There Any Time Limit For the Filing Of a Complaint? 
Yes, a complaint must be filed within six months after alleged act of discrimina- 
tion. 

What Happens To a Complaint After It Is Filed? 
It is assigned to a commissioner who, with the assistance of the staff, conducts an 
investigation to determine whether probable cause exists for crediting the state- 
ments appearing in the complaint. 

What Does "Probable Cause" Mean? 
That there is credible evidence warranting a belief that discrimination may 
have been practiced. 

If Probable Cause Is Found to Exist, What Then? 
The Investigating Commissioner endeavors to eliminate the unlawful practice 
complained of by conferences, conciliation and persuasion, that is, through frank 
discussion with the parties concerned. 

If Conference, Conciliation and Persuasion Prove Unsuccessful, What Further Steps 
May Be Taken? 

A formal hearing may then be ordered before the other three Commissioners. 
The Investigating Commissioner can now appear only as a witness, and the 
testimony taken at this hearing shall be under oath. 

How Is a Final Order of the Commission Enforced? 

The Commission may obtain in the Superior Court an order for the enforcement 
of its decision. 

Was the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination Always Known By 
This Name? 

No. From 1946 to 1950 the Commission was known as the Fair Employment 
Practice Commission. 

Why Was the Name of the Commission Changed in 1950? 
The name of the Commission was changed because of certain amendments which 
increased the duties of the Commission and broadened the scope of the original 



8 



AVhnt Were These Amendments to the Original Fair Employment Practice Law? 
The amendments were three in number: 

1. The age amendment; 

2. The public accommodations amendment; 

3. The pubUc housing amendment. 

What Is the Age Amendment? 

The age amendment prohibits discrimination in employment solely because of 
age. Age is defined in the law as being between the 45th and 65th birthday. 

^\■hat Is the Public Accommodations Amendment? 

This amendment prohibits the making of any distinction, discrimination or re- 
striction on account of religion, color, national origin or race relative to the 
achnission of anv person to, or his treatment in, any place of public accommoda- 
tion, resort or amusement. 

What Is the Public Housing Amendment? 

This amendment provides that there shall be no discrimination nor segregation 
in public housing because of race, color, creed, or religion. 

Must There Be an Official Notice of the Commission Posted on the Premises? 
Yes. Every employer, employment agency, real estate agency, rental office and 
labor union subject to this law shall post in a conspicuous place or places on 
his premises a notice prepared by the Commission and called the Summary of 
the Law, which sets forth excerpts of the law and such other relevant information 
which the Commission deems necessary to explain the law. 

Any employer, employment agency, real estate agency, rental office or labor 
union refusing to comply with the provisions of this section shall be punished by 
a fine of not less than $10.00 nor more than $100.00. 

Is There a Regulation Concerning the Display of an Official Poster In a Place Of 

Public Accommodation? 

At a public hearing held on May 21, 1959 the Commission adopted a regulation 
ordering all places of public accommodations to display conspicuously a Public 
Accommodations poster. 

Has There Been Any Added Jurisdiction Given the MCAD Since the Amendments 
of 1950? 

Yes. In 1955 the Fair Employment Practice Act was amended. In 1956 the admin- 
istration of the Fair Educational Practices Law Avas transferred from the Depart- 
ment of Education to the MCAD. In 1957 the Publicly Assisted Housing Law 
was enacted. In 1959 the Private Housing Law was passed. 

What Does the 1955 Amendment Provide? 

No person engaged in insurance or the bonding business may make inquiry or 
record any information relating to the race, color, religious creed, national origin 
or ancestry of a person to be bonded. 

^Vhat Does the Fair Educational Practices Law Cover? 

It covers all educational institutions in the state with the possible exception of 
religious institutions, and then only in regard to religion. 

What Does It Declare? 

It declares the policy of the Commonwealth to be the American ideal of equality 
of opportunity requiring that students, otherwise qualified, be admitted to 
educational institutions without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. 

What Is The Purpose of the Publicly Assisted Housing Law? 

The prevention and elimination of discrimination because of race, creed, color 
or national origin in the sale, rental or lease of private housing accommodations 
which are publicly assisted. 



9 



What Are Some Examples of Housing Which is Publicly Assisted? 

1. Housing which is tax exempt in whole or in part. 

2. Housing constructed under urban renewal programs. 

3. Housing accommodations located in a multiple dwelling insured by the Federal 
Housing Administration or some other agency of the Federal or State Govern- 
ment. 

4. Housing accommodations located in a development of ten or more contiguous 
units, the construction of which has been insured by a governmental agency 
or which are offered for sale under the FHA or VA mortgage insurance pro- 
grams. 

What Is a Multiple Dwelling? 

A dwelling which is occupied as the residence or home of three or more families 
living independently of each other. 

Is There a Later Amendment Concerning Housing? 
Yes. Chapter 239 of the Legislative Acts of 1959 broadened the scope of existing 
legislation in that the law covers private housing consisting of multiple dwelling 
of three or more or ten or more houses contiguously located. 

What Types of Housing Are Covered By The New Law? 

The following types of private housing are covered: apartment houses, housing 
developments consisting of ten or more houses and single houses if the house 
has been built on "one of ten or more lots of a tract whose plan has been sub- 
mitted to a planning board as required by THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL 
LAW." 

What Is An Unfair Practice Under the Law? 
An unfair practice is: 

a. to refuse to rent, lease or sell to any person or group of persons because 
of race, creed, color or national origin housing covered by the law; 

b. to discriminate against any person because of his race, creed, color or national 
origin in the terms, conditions or privileges of such housing or in the fur- 
nishing of facilities or services in connection therewith; or 

c. to cause to be made any written or oral inquiry or record concerning the 
race, creed, color or national origin of a person seeking to buy, rent or 
lease any such housing. 

What Is the Attorney General's Ruling Concerning Real Estate Agencies? 

On November 24, 1959 Attorney General Edward J. McCormack, Jr. ruled that 
real estate agencies are places of public accommodation and are subject to the 
provisions of Chapter 272, Section 98 of the General Laws. 

What Constitutes a Violation By a Real Estate Agency? 

The ruling declared that it is a violation for a real estate agency to refuse to 
ofiEer its services to any person or to refuse to accommodate any person as a 
client because of race, creed, color or national origin. 

Are Licensed Real Estate Brokers Subject to the Provisions of the Fair Housing Law? 
Yes. Chapter 128 of the Legislative Acts of 1961 amended General Laws Chapter 
15IB, section 4, subsection 6 to include licensed real estate brokers. 

Who Are Prohibited From Employing Unfair Practices Under the Law? 

Owners, lessees, sublessees, licensed real estate brokers, assignees or managing 
agents or other persons having the right to ownership or possession of right to 
rent or lease, or sell, or negotiate for the sale of the housing accommodations or 
any agent or employee of such persons. 

What Is the Amendment Concerning Mortgage Loans? 
Chapter 151B, section 4, subsection 3B of the General Laws, as amended by 
Chapter 163 of the Legislative Acts of 1960, prohibits any person engaged in 



10 



ihc business of granting mortgage loans to discriminate against any person in the 
granting of any mortgage loan, including but not limited to the interest rate, 
urms or duration of such mortgage loan, because of his race, color, religious 
creed, national origin, or ancestry. 
Can the Commission Obtain Injunctive Relief Restraining the Sale, Rental or 
Least- of the Housing Accommodation Involved in a Complaint Before It? 

Yes. Chapter 570 of the Legislative Acts of 1961 amended Chapter 151B, section 
5 of the General Laws to outline the procedure to be taken by an individual com- 
missioner to petition the Courts for a restraining order which will provide in- 
junctive relief. Such an injunction can only be issued by the Court. 

When .May the Court Be Petitioned to Grant Such a Restraining Order? 
As soon as a determination of probable cause has been made that the allegations 
of the complaint have been substantiated. 

Provided Injunctive Relief Is Granted How Does This Help the Complainant? 
The owner of the housing accommodations is restrained from renting, leasing* 
or selling the housing accommodations to any other than the complainant pending 
the final determination of the Commission in the matter. 

What Significant Changes Were Made in the Private Housing Section of the Law? 
An amendment was passed in 1963 which provided that every housing accommo- 
dation in Massachusetts, except the rental or lease of a vacancy in an ow^ner- 
occupicd two-family dwelling, and of land intended for the erection of housing 
accommodations could not be denied any person or persons because of the race, 
color, religious creed, national origin or national ancestry of such person or 
persons. 

What .\dditional Duties Are Given the Commission? 

It is given the power to create advisory agencies and conciliation councils and 

as is stated in the law: 

"The Commission may empower them to study the problem of discrimination 
in order to foster through community effort . . , good will, cooperation and 
conciliation among the groups and elements of the population of the Com- 
monwealth . . . and make recommendations to the Commission for the develop- 
ment of policies . . . and for programs of formal education which the Com- 
mission may recommend to the appropriate state agency." 



PUBLIC HEARINGS 

There were five public hearings held during the year of this report. 
Four of the hearings were held on complaints involving violations of fair housing 
practices. 

The fifth complaint was concerned with a place of public accommodations. 

The Commission was notified that petitions for judicial review have been entered 
by three of the respondents. 

The Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Orders of the Commission on the five 
complaints follow: 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
^MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION on relation of 
ELSIE DAVIS, Complainant 
vs. 

STEPHEN ECONOMAKOS, CATHERINE M. 
BOIS AND CHARLES J. BOIS 
No. PrH VI-15-C 

This cause came on for hearing before Chairman Mildred H. Mahoney and Com- 
missioners Ben G. Shapiro and Malcolm C. Webber who, upon consideration of all 
the evidence, set forth their findings, conclusions, and orders as follows: 



11 



Findings of Fact. 

1. Complainant is a Negro and a resident of the City of Maiden. 

2. Respondents are the owners of certain real estate located at 17 Upham Street, 
Maiden. 

3. The said real estate is improved with a building which contains three separate 
and independent residential apartments. 

On March 11, 1964, there appeared in a newspaper of general circulation in Maiden, 
the following advertisement: 

"MALDEN — 3rd fir. 4 large rms. Heated. Cont. hot water. Newly papered and 

painted. Adults. 324-6493 2-5" 
324-6495 is the number of the telephone at respondents' apartment. One Cahill, an 
employee of Maiden Redevelopment Authority, saw the said advertisement on the 
day of its publication. On that same day, he telephoned the number listed in the 
advertisement. Cahill identified himself to the person who answered the telephone 
as an employee of Maiden Redevelopment Authority. He said that the Authority 
was looking for housing for families being displaced by the Authority and asked 
whether he might so list the apartment advertised as being so available. The person 
who answered the telephone said "O.K." 

4. On April 6, 1964, Cahill called respondent's telephone number and made an 
appointment to show the advertised apartment to prospective tenants. Cahill ac- 
companied complainant to 17 Upham Street at the appointed time. There complainant 
and Cahill were met by respondent Catherine M. Bois, who offered to, and did, 
show them the third floor apartment. Complainant indicated a desire to rent the 
apartment, and tendered a deposit. Said respondent refused the tender and stated 
that the said apartment had previously been requested for lease by another prospect 
and that complainant could call said respondent the next day when respondent would 
inform her of the disposition of the apartment. 

5. The following day said Cahill called the number listed in the advertisement. He 
told the person who answered that he was calling for complainant's family and asked 
whether the apartment which they had seen the previous night was available. He 
was told that the apartment was not available because it had been rented previously. 
Said information was not true. At that time, respondents were offering for rent said 
apartment to white applicants generally who met requirements which were also met 
by complainant. Had complainant not been Negro, respondents would have told or 
instructed whoever answered the phone to tell Cahill that complainant could rent 
the said apartment, and would have rented the said apartment to complainant. 

The following conclusions are set forth: 

1. Respondents are the owners of housing accommodations which are offered for 
lease to the general public by means of a public offering, all within the meaning of 
G. L. c. 151B, s 1 (13), Respondent, Catherine Bois, was authorized to lease such 
accommodations. 

2. Respondent Catherine Bois refused to lease to, and discriminated against, com- 
plainant on account of complainant's color, in violation of G. L. c. 151B, s 4 (7). 

3. The orders herein made will effectuate the purposes of c. 15 IB of the General 
Laws. 

On the basis of the foregoing, and pursuant to G. L. c. 151B, s 5, it is hereby 
ORDERED by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, that respondents, 
their agents and servants, 

1. Cease and desist from discriminating against complainant on the basis of color. 

2. Forthwith offer to rent to complainant the third floor apartment at 17 Upham 
Street, Maiden, on the same terms and conditions, and at the same rental, as were 
offered for such rental to other prospective applicants and to hold said offer open 
for at least fourteen (14) days. 

3. Notify this commission within thirty days from the date hereof of your com- 
pliance with the foregoing. 

Dated at Boston this 23rd day of June, 1964. 



12 



COMMON\VEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
M\SS\CHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION on relation of 

BERNARD GRIGGS 
vs. 

ESTHER SCHLESINGER 
and 

SALLY HOFFSTEIN 

Executive Department 
Findings of Fact 
Conclusion of Law 
Order 
PrH VI-55-C 

This cause came on for hearing before Chairman Mildred H. Mahoney and Com- 
missioners Ben G. Shapiro and Malcolm C. Webber, who, upon consideration of all 
the evidence, set fourth their findings, conclusion and order as follows: 

Findings of Fact 
\. Complainant is a resident of the City of Boston. 

2. Respondent Schlesinger resides at 27 Mildreth Street, Dorchester (Boston), and 
is the owner of real estate located at 10, 12, 16 and 37 Jacob Street, Mattapan (Boston). 

3. The buildings located at the said addresses at Jacob Street are divided into, 
and used as, residential apartments. 

4. Said 10 Jacob Street building is divided into 6 such apartments. 

5. For several years prior to July, 1964, respondent HofEstein rented from Schle- 
singer, an apartment on the third floor of said 10 Jacob Street building, and used 
that apartment as her (Hoff"stein's) residence. On or about July 1, 1964, HofiEstein 
rented from Schlesinger and moved to an apartment on the second floor of said 10 
Jacob Street building, and used that apartment as her (Hoffstein's) residence. 

6. On August 11, 1964, complainant visited 10 Jacob Street building for the purpose 
of looking for an apartment to rent for himself and his mother and father. 

7. On .August 11, 1964, Schlesinger was vacationing in Connecticut. 

8. Prior to August 11, 1964, Schlesinger had never seen or met complainant. Com- 
plainant early in July had telephoned Schlesinger's residence and inquired from who- 
ever answered about apartment for rent on Jacob Street, but he did not then identify 
or describe himself, nor did he otherwise prior to August II, 1964, have any contact 
with Schlesinger. 

9. On August II, a third floor apartment at 10 Jacob Street was vacant and available 
for rent. A "for rent" sign hung outside the building. 

10. Outside the premises at 10 Jacob Street, complainant met Hoffstein on the 
occasion of his visit to the premises August 11, 1964. He there and then asked her 
whether there was an apartment for rent at 10 Jacob Street. She responded that she 
thought there was one apartment available at $70 to $75 rental per month, but that 
she was not entirely sure. He did not ask to be shown the apartment. She did not 
offer to show the apartment. She would have refused his request to be shown the 
apartment if alone, but not if accompanied by a female. Hoffstein gave complainant 
her telephone number, which was unlisted, and told him to call if interested in 
seeing or renting an apartment. In ail the foregoing respects, Hoffstein acted no 
differently toward complainant then she would have toward any male under the 
same circumstances, regardless of his race or color. Hoffstein did not in fact nor did 
she intend or try to, discourage complainant from seeking to rent said apartment, nor 
withhold it from complainant nor impose any impediments to his renting the apart- 
ment, nor refuse to discuss the terms of renting the apartment because of his race 
or color. 

11. Schlesinger had never directed or requested Hoffstein to act differently with 
respect to Negroes than with respect to non-Negroes in the showing of apartments. 



13 



nor did she have any contact Avith Hoff stein concerning complainant until after her 
return from vacation, August 16, 1964, after these proceedings had commenced. 

Conclusions of Law 

1. The above facts do not disclose any violation of chapter 151 B by either re- 
spondent. 

2. It is therefore not necessary to determine whether respondent Hoffstein was an 
agent of respondent Schlesinger for any purpose, and if so, the extent of Hoffstein's 
authority. 

ORDER 

The complaint is dismissed. 

Position of Commissioner Webber 
Commissioner Webber agrees with the foregoing, but would reopen the hearing to 
take further testimony on events transpiring subsequent to August 16, 1964. 
Dated at Boston this 27th day of October, 1964. 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION On Relation of 
DONALD BOYD, COMPLAINANT 
vs 

EDWARD AND ANTOINETTE BURGESS, RESPONDENTS 
No. SPrHI-19-C 

This cause came on for hearing before Ben G. Shapiro, and Ruth M. Batson, 
Commissioners, who upon consideration of all the evidence, set forth their findings, 
conclusions and orders as follows: 

Findings of Fact 

1. Complainant is a Negro and a resident of the City of Springfield. 

2. Respondents are owners of certain real estate located at 113 Center Street, Lud- 
low. 

3. The said real estate is improved with a building which contains at least ten 
residential units, which are rented to various tenants. 

4. The complainant and the respondents never discussed with each other the ques- 
tion of renting or sharing an apartment at the property of the respondents at 113 
Center Street, Ludlow. 

5. Sometime during the month of August, 1964, one Bernard Courtois, rented an 
apartment at 113 Center Street, Ludlow, from the respondents at a rental of $60 
per month. 

6. Prior to the time that Courtois became a tenant of the respondents, he and the 
complainant both lived at the Y.M.C.A., 122 Chestnut Street, Springfield, Massachu- 
setts, and were social friends. 

7. After Courtois had become a tenant of the respondents, he, on several occasions, 
asked the respondent, Edward Burgess, whether or not he could share his apartment 
with a roommate. Respondent, on each occasion, stated that he had no objection to 
such sharing of said apartment. 

8. Subsequent to the conservations referred to in 7. above, Courtois told Edward 
Burgess that the person with whom Courtois intended to share the apartment was a 
Negro, the complainant, Donald Boyd. Respondent said that he would have to speak 
to his wife about it and would have to survey the tenants regarding the matter. Sub- 
sequently, when asked by Courtois of the status of the matter, respondent said "we 
had better not try it," which respondent intended, and Courtois understood, to be a 
negative answer. 

9. If the complainant had not been a Negro, the respondent would not have ob- 
jected to Courtois' sharing his apartment. 

10. The complainant is no longer interested in accepting the housing accommoda- 
tion which he was denied. 

Tlie following conclusions are set forth. 



14 



(1) The rcspoiulcius arc the owners of a multiple dwelling a housing accommoda- 
tion within the meaning of G. L. c. 151B. s 11 (12). Respondent, Edward Burgess, 
was authorized to rent or lease such accommodations. 

(2) Respondent. Edward Burgess, did discriminate against the complainant on 
account of complainant's color, in violation of G. L. c. 15IB, s 4 (6). 

(3) The orders lu rcin made will effectuate the purposes of c. 151B of the General 
Laws. 

On the basis of tlic foregoing, and pursuant to G. L. c. 151B, s. 5, it is hereby 
ORDERED bv the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, that respon- 
dents, their agents and servants, 

1. Henceforth and in the future case and desist and refrain from making any 
inquir)-. distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race or color in the 
leasing or offering for lease any housing accommodation owned or controlled. 

2. For a period of one year from this date, to include or cause to be included in 
any printed or published advertisements of any such housing accommodation, in- 
cluding without limitation, any such newspaper advertisement, the following state- 
ment, printed as prominently as the most prominent word elsewhere therein: 

'■.\11 housing accommodations referred to herein are offered to all qualified persons 
without regard to race or color," 

3. For a period of one year from this date, to cause to be hung on a wall in any 
rental office used by repondent in connection with the rental of housing accommoda- 
tions, in a place approved by this commission, a notice in the form attached hereto. 

4. To send this Commission on or before the fifth day of each month subsequent 
hereto for twelve successive months a report, which shall state, for the n€xt preceding 
month: 

(a) The number, location and size by rooms of each apartment which became or 
was available for rental during said month and which respondent had a right 
to lease or show to prospective tenants; and the date upon which such apart- 
ment became so available. 

(b) The name, address and stated requirements of each Negro who inquired about 
apartments from respondent, but the foregoing shall not authorize the making 
of any inquiry prohibited by item No. 1 of this order. 

(c) Whether respondent rented any such apartment to any such Negro, and if so, 
which apartment. 

5. Forthwith to offer in writing to rent to complainant (with a copy to this Com- 
mission), the next apartment within the said building to become available, on the 
same terms, provisions and conditions as apply to the public generally. 

Dated at Boston this thirty-first day of December, 1964. 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION On Relation of 
MARY J. REID, Complainant 
vs. 

JOSEPH H. GARNEAU, Respondent 
No. SPrHI-22-C 

This cause came on for hearing before Chairman Mildred H. Mahoney and Com- 
missioners Ben G. Shapiro and Ruth M. Batson who, upon consideration of all the 
evidence, set forth their findings, conclusions and orders as follows: 

Findings of Fact 

1. Complainant is a Negro and a resident of the City of Springfield. 

2. Respondent is the ownei ^f certain real estate located at 327 St. James Avenue, 
Springfield. 

3. The said real estate is improved with a building which contains sixteen separate 
and individual apartments. On October 5, 1964 the respondent caused to be printed 



15 



in the SPRINGFIELD DAILY NEWS, a newspaper of general circulation in Spring- 
field, the following advertisement: 

"FOUR rm. apt., all modem, refrig., gas stove, oil heat. Washer & dryer in base- 
ment. Adults. $74 per mo. 327 St. James Ave., ST 8-9876." 
ST 8-9876 is the number of the telephone at respondent's apartment. 

4. The complainant read the above-mentioned advertisement, called and made an 
appointment with the respondent, and pursuant thereto, saw the respondent at the 
respondent's apartment on October 6, 1964. At that time, respondent told complain- 
ant that he (respondent) could not climb the stairs because of a heart condition, and 
also told complainant that he (respondent) would telephone complainant at a num- 
ber given to him by the complainant. The next day, October 7, 1964, the complain- 
ant received a telephone message from the respondent stating that he had a tenant 
on the fourth floor who had a friend who was interested in the apartment and that 
rental to the complaint would depend on whether this friend of the tenant w^ould 
take the advertised apartment. 

5. During the afternoon of October 6, 1964 after the complainant had seen the 
resfK)ndent, one Mary Tuohey, together with a friend, Elizabeth J. LeClair, went to 
327 St. James Avenue, Springfield, and the said Mary Tuohey asked to see the apart- 
ment that the respondent had advertised as being available. The respondent advised 
the said Mary Tuohey that he did not have a key but that she would go to the fourth 
floor and a tenant on the fourth floor would let her see the apartment. The said 
Mary Tuohey is not a friend or relative of the tenant on the fourth floor or of any 
tenant living in the apartment of the respondent. The tenant on the fourth floor 
was not at home. Said Mary Tuohey was able to and did look in through the window 
of the advertised, vacant apartment; and when the said Mary^ Tuchey went back 
downstairs into the respondent's apartment, she gave him her telephone number. 
During her conversation this day with the respondent in the respondent's apartment^ 
the respondent told the said Mary Tuohey that a woman had been there that morning 
asking about the advertised apartment but that he did not like her background. The 
said Mary Tuohey asked the respondent if he would accept a defKDsit of $5 or §10 
and the respondent stated that he wanted a §25 deposit. That same day at about 
5:30 P.M. the respondent called the said Mary Tuohey advising her that the janitor 
of the building was present and that she could see the apartment then and that she 
could have the apartment if she wanted it. 

6. The respondent did not investigate the background of either the complainant or 
said Mary Tuohey. 

7. If the complainant had not been a Negro, the respondent would have offered to 
rent the said apartment to the complainant. 

The following conclusions are set forth: 

(1) Respondent is the owner of housing accommodations which are offered for 
lease to the general public by means of a public offering, all within the meaning of 
c. 151 B of the General Laws. 

(2) The resfHindent withheld the said apartment from, and discrimination against, 
complainant on account of complainant's color, in violation of G. L. c. 151B, s. 4(7). 

(3) The orders herein made will effectuate the purposes of c. 15 IB, of the General 
Laws. 

On the basis of the foregoing, and pursuant to G. L. c. 151B, s. 5, it is hereby 
ORDERED, by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, that respon- 
dent, his agent and servants, 

1. Henceforth and in the future cease and desist and refrain from making any 
inquiry, distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race or color in the 
leasing or offering for lease any housing accommodation owned or controlled. 

2. For a period of one year from this date, to include or cause to be included in 
any printed or published advertisements of any such housing accommodation, in- 
cluding without limitation, any such newspaper advertisement, the following state- 
ment, printed as prominently as the most prominent word elsewhere therein: 



16 



"All housing accommodations referred to herein are offered to all qualified persons 
without regard to race or color." 
8 For a period of one vear from this date, to cause to be hung on a wall in any 
rental office used by respondent in connection with the rental of housing accommoda- 
tions, in a place approved by this Commission, a notice in the form attached hereto. 

4 To send this Commission on or before the fifih day of each month subsequent 
hereto for twelve successive month a report, which shall state, for the next precedmg 
month: 

(a) The number, location and size by rooms of each apartment which became or 
was available for rental during said month and which respondent had a right 
to lease or show to prospective tenants; and the date upon which such apart- 
ment became so available. 

(b) The name, address and slated requirements of each Negro who inquired about 
apartments from respondent, but the foregoing shall not authorize the making 
of an inquiry prohibited by item No. 1 of this order. 

(c) ^^■hether respondent rented any such apartment to any such Negro, and if so, 
which apartment. 

3. Forthwith to offer in writing to rent to complainant (with a copy to this Com- 
mission) the apartment described in the advertisement referred to in item 3 of the 
Findings of Fact unless the same heretofore has been rented to another, in which 
event to so offer the next apartment to become available, all on the same terms, 
provisions and conditions as apply to the public generally. 
Dated at Boston this thirtieth day of December 1964. 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTTS 
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION 

vs. 

LOCAL FINANCE COMPANY OF ROCKLAND 

(Executive Department Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Rulings on Motion 
Orders PXIV-2-C) 

This cause came on for hearing before Chairman Mildred H. Mahoney and Com- 
missioner Ben G. Shapiro, who, upon consideration of all the evidence, set forth 
their findings, conclusions, rulings and orders as follows: 

Findings of Fact 

1. Respondent is a trust organized under the provisions of Chapter 182 of the 
General Laws. 

2. Respondent is the holder of a license issued by the Division of Banks authoriz- 
ing Respondent to conduct the business of making loans subject to General Laws, 
Chapter 140, Sections 96-1 14A. 

3. Respondent conducts the business for which it is licensed from a street-level 
office in Rockland. Respondent maintains a sign entitled "Local Finance Company" 
on the outside of the office. The front door to the office is not locked during busi- 
ness hours. Applicants for loans may enter the office through this door. It is normal 
procedure for such an applicant to be interviewed and assisted in filling out respon- 
dent's form application for a small loan by an employee of respondent. 

4. Respondent's application form contains three boxes, labelled "1", "2", and 
"3" respectively. These boxes are designed for use, and are so used by respondent 
and its employees, to record information concerning the applicant as follows: 

If the applicant is white, the box labelled "I" is checked; if the applicant is Negro, 
the box labelled "2" is checked; if the applicant is of Spanish ancestry, the box 
labelled "3" is checked. 

5. Respondent's ledger cards contain boxes similarly marked, and used for the 
same purpose as the boxes on the application form. 

6. The information contained in the said boxes on Respondents application is a 
factor which is considered by Respondent in determining whether to grant an ap- 



17 



plicant a loan, white applicants being more favorably considered than are Negro 
or Spanish applicants. 

7. On April 7, 1964, Respondent's general manager, on behalf of Respondent, re- 
fused to consider the application for a loan of a person solely because that person 
was not white. 

Conclusions of Law 

1. Respondent is a place of public accommodation within the meaning and subject 
to the provisions of General Laws, Chapter 272, Section 92A and 98. 

2. The maintenance and use of the boxes by respondent on its applications and 
ledger cards, as set forth above, constitutes a distinction on account of color or na- 
tional origin, in violation of General Laws, Chapter 272, Section 98. 

3. The practice of respondent of giving consideration to the color or national origin 
as set forth above, constitutes a discrimination or restriction on account of color or 
national origin, in violation of General Laws, Chapter 272, Section 98. 

4. The refusal by Respondent to consider an application on April 7, as set forth 
above, constituted a discrimination or restriction in violation of General Laws, Chap- 
ter 272, Section 98. 

On the basis of the foregoing, and pursuant to General Laws, Chapter 15 IB, Sec- 
tion 5, it is hereby ORDERED by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimina- 
tion that the respondent Local Finance Company of Rockland, its agents and servants: 

1. Cease and desist from considering the color or national origin of any applicant 
for a loan as a factor in determining whether to grant such applicant a loan. 

2. Cease and desist from recording the color or national origin of any applicant 
or account of respondent. 

3. Discontinue the use of application forms and ledger cards with spaces thereon 
designed for use to record color or national origin of an applicant or account of 
respondent. 

4. Report to this Commission within thirty days from this date on what steps 
Respondent has taken or is then taking to comply with the foregoing orders. 

After the hearing. Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. The first ground 
asserted was that the complaint was too vague. Respondent did not make any motion 
to dismiss or for specifications prior to trial. Its answer does not assert this defense. 

Respondent cross-examined witness produced by the Commission vigorously, ex- 
tensively and knowledgeably. Respondent produced a witness and similarly examined 
him. We find as a fact that respondent was adequately apprised by the complainant 
of the nature of the complaint against and was not surprised by the evidence at the 
hearing. We rule that Respondent did not seasonably raise any objection to the 
sufiBciency of the complaint and can not now raise such objection. 

We have considered Respondent's other arguments for dismissal and reject them. 

Respondent's motion to dismiss is denied. 

Dated at Boston this 29th of July, 1964. 

PUBLIC HOUSING SURVEY STATISTICS 

Each year a survey is made of the tenant selection program and placement policy 
of twenty-seven Public Housing Authorities to determine that equal opportunity for 
public housing is accorded all citizens of the Commonwealth regardless of race, color, 
creed, or religion. 

The survey includes the number and names of the completed housing developments 
as well as the number of units to be constructed during the ensuing year. 

All forms and records made out by and for applicants for public housing; the 
eligibility requirements as to residency, family components, and income of applicants 
are examined and a census of the non-white tenant population is obtained. 

The non-white census figures for 1961, 1962, 1963, and 1964 are reproduced in this 
section. 



18 



BOSTON 


HOUSING 


AUTHORITY 








State Program 


No. of Units No. 


of Non-White Famili 






1961 


1962 


1963 


1964 


Broadway 




1 ± 

l-i 


1 T 


ID 


10 


Camden Street 




/ 1 


71 


72 


72 


Commonwealth 


648 


lb 


14 


17 


1 o 


Faneiiil 


258 


o 
4 


o 
/ 


6 


o 

o 


Fairmont 


202 














Archdale 


288 


5 


4 


4 


7 


Orient Heights 


354 


7 


5 


2 


6 


Galli\an Boulevard 


251 








1 


2 


Franklin Field 


504 


13 


16 


19 


26 


South Street 


132 











1 


Total 


3,681 


130 


1^7 


133 


155 


FUDI RAL ProCR.\M 












Charlestown 


1,149 


5 


4 


5 


5 


Mission Hill 


1,023 





1 


3 




Lenox Street 


306 


299 


298 


305 


299 


Orchard Park 


774 


179 


235 


267 


458 


South End 


558 


271 


275 


276 


290 


Heath Street 


420 


6 


1 1 


49 


HA 

90 


East Boston 


414 





U 


U 


5 


Franklin Hill Avenue 


375 


16 


15 


18 


28 


Whittier Street 


200 


187 


185 


192 


193 


\Vashington and Beach Sts. 


274 


2 


3 


3 


3 


Mission Hill Extension 


588 


492 


504 


518 


531 


Bromley Park 


732 


188 


196 


240 




^Ul UlllUld. A Ulll L 




lO-t 




ZOO 


RQl 


Old Harbor Village 


1 016 












u 


Old Colony 


O 1 n 


9 





n 
u 




Total 


10,156 


1,831 


1,931 


2,251 


2,616 


Housing For The Elderly 












Bickford 


64 




8 


8 


8 


Jamaica Pond 


44 













Annapolis 


56 


— 


1 


1 


1 


Ashmont 


54 













JLim rllll 


86 




15 


14 


17 


Franklin Field 


160 




1 


2 


11 


William J. Foley 


96 






1 


1 


Total 


560 




25 


26 


38 



BROCKTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1961 


1962 


1963 


1964 


Roosevelt Heights 


124 


10 


10 


9 


7 


Washburn Heights 


50 














Total 


174 


10 


10 


9 


7 


Federal Program 












Hill Street 


100 


7 


8 


9 


15 


Housing For The Elderly 












Golden Circle 


46 














Melvin Road 


64 











1 


North Warren Ave. Ext. 


120 














Total 


230 











1 



19 



CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units \o. of No7i- White Families 







1961 


1962 


1963 


1964 


Woodrow \Vilson Court 


69 


2 


3 


3 


4 


Jefferson Park 


109 


7 


9 


7 


6 


Lincoln ^Va.v 


60 


1 


2 


3 


4 


T? nn^f vpl f Tnwprs 

aVV-zv-* jV- vi^iL A. \j >y \^ ± J 


228 


21 


22 


23 


25 


Jackson Gardens 


46 








1 


1 


TpfFpr^nn Park T'vrpnsinn 


200 


9 


11 


11 


16 


Total 


712 


40 


47 


48 


56 


Federal Program 












Washington Elms 


324 


38 


39 


51 


56 


Putnam Gardens 


123 


42 


43 


44 


44 


New Towne Court 


294 


14 


16 


21 


23 


Corcoran 


152 


4 


5 


5 


4 


John F. Kennedy Apartments 


88 








9 


Total 


981 


98 


103 


121 


129 



FALMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units Xo. of N on- White Families 







1961 


1962 


1963 


196-f 


Amvets Avenue 


50 


5 


4 


2 


3 


Mayflower 


24 














Total 


74 


5 


4 


2 


3 



Federal Program 
Housing For The Elderly 
Salt Sea 30 — 1 1 1 

HOLYOKE HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 


No. of Units 


No. 


of Non-White 


Familii 






1961 


1962 


1963 


1964 


Beaudoin Village 


219 


1 


1 


4 


2 


Minnie R. Dwight Village 


42 














Edwin A. Seibel Apartments 


40 














Total 


301 


1 


1 


4 


2 


Feder-al Program 












Jackson Parkway 


219 








2 


2 


Lyman Terrace 


167 


4 


4 


16 


6 


Henry Toepfert Apartments 


98 


5 


16 


24 


32 


Total 


484 


9 


20 


42 


40 


HoLSLNG For The Elderly 












John J. Zeilinski Apartments 


64 













P. A. Coughlin Apartments 


55 













Beaudry Boucher Apartments 


31 




1 


1 


1 


Total 


150 




1 


1 


1 



NEW BEDFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1961 


1962 


1963 


1964 


Parkdale 


100 


3 


4 


4 


3 


Blue Meadows 


150 


14 


15 


15 


14 


Nashmont 


80 











1 


Crestview-Westwood (Elderly) 


75 


2 


1 


1 


1 


Total 


405 


19 


20 


20 


19 



20 



Feder.\i. I'ro(;ram 
Bay Village 
Presidential Heights 
Brickcnwood 
West lawn 



STATK i'RDCRAM 

\Vilson Park 
Francis Plaza (Elderly) 
Wahconah Heights (Elderly) 

Total 
Federal Program 
Victory Hill 

PLYMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 
Stah Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1961 1962 1963 1964 



200 


155 


163 


163 


167 


200 





2 


2 


2 


300 


16 


17 


15 


15 


200 


44 


47 


49 


51 


900 


215 


229 


229 


235 


HOUSING AUTHORITY 






No. of Units 


No. 


of Non-White 


... 

t aintltt 




1961 


1962 


1963 


1964 


126 














40 


1 


1 


1 


1 


68 














234 


I 


I 


1 


1 


99 








1 


I 



Olmstcad Terrace and 

Standish Court 
Castle Hill (Elderly) 

Total 



40 
47 

87 



SPRINGFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 


No. of Units 


No. 


of Non- 


White 


Famili 






1961 


1962 


1963 


1964 


Reed Village 


200 


18 


32 


35 


61 


Robinson Gardens 


136 


12 


12 


11 


17 


Duggan Park 


196 


16 


20 


21 


21 


Carpe Diem (Elderly) 


75 


1 




1 





Harry P. Hogan Apartments 


32 


3 


3 


1 





Forest Park Manor 


116 








3 


Total 


755 


50 


68 


69 


102 


Federal Program 












Riverview 


348 






34 


252 


Riverview (Elderly) 


40 








4 


Total 


388 






34 


256 



WORCESTER HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 



No. of Units 



Curtis Apartments 
Lakeside Apartments 
George F. Booth 
Memorial Apartments 

Total 
Federal Program 
Great Brook Valley Gardens 
Mayside Lane Apartments (Elderly) 
Addison Streets Apartments (Elderly) 



No. of Non-White Families 





1961 


1962 


1963 


1964 


390 


5 


6 


11 


9 


204 











1 


75 





1 








669 


5 


7 


11 


10 


600 


19 


17 


22 


23 


50 














50 















21 



Mill Pond Lane Apartments (Elderly) 50 



Total 



State Program 



750 



19 



17 




22 




23 



ARLINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units Xo. of N on -White Families 







1961 


1962 


1963 


1964 


Menotomy Manor 


176 





2 


2 


2 


Drake Village 


72 














Total 


248 





2 


2 


2 



State Program 



BARNSTABLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1961 


1962 


1963 


1961 


General Patton 


40 


10 


12 


11 


13 


LROOKLINE 


HOUSING 


AUTHORITY 






Siate Program 


Nj. of Uni 


.'5 No. 


of Non- 


White 


Fnni'i* 






1961 


1962 


1953 


l''6f 


Egmont Street Development 


114 







1 





High Street Develcpmjnt 


117 





1 


2 





Marion Street Development 


60 














Total 


291 





5 







Federal Prcgr.\m 












Walnut Street 


100 




2 


9 


1 



State Program 



Federal Progr.\m 



State Program 



CHELSEA HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non-White Famil 

1961 1962 
350 1 



1963 




1961 




200 



EVERETT HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1961 


1962 


1963 


1961 


Corbett Hill 


268 


17 


17 


17 


17 


Winthrop Road 


60 


3 


o 


2 


2 


Cherry Street 


64 


3 


3 


3 


3 


Golden Age Circle (Elderly) 


40 














Proctor Road (Elderly) 


120 




1 


1 


1 


Total 


552 


24 


23 


23 


23 



State Program 



FRAMINGHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1961 


1962 


1963 


1964 


Concord Street 


110 














St. Lo Road 


75 














Title V. Arsenault Road 


25 


1 


1 


2 


3 


Gran Road 


25 














Hverett Avenue 


40 














Total 


275 


1 


1 


2 


3 


Federal Program 












Beaver Street 


125 


1 


2 


2 


1 


Housing For The Elderly 












Arsenault Road 


80 











1 



22 



LWVRENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY 



STATT PBOCR.OI 



No. of Units 



No. of Non-White Families 







1961 


1962 


1963 


1964 


Stadium Courts 


256 


3 


6 


3 


2 


Hancock Courts 


m 


3 


25 


9 


12 


TOT.\L 


431 


5 


5; 




• 4 


FEDOLU. PKOCK.KM 












Menimack Courts 


292 


4 


3 


2 


1 


Bcacoo Courts 


208 





1 










Total 


500 


4 


4 


6 


7 


Hoisixc For The Ei nnti v 












Rrv. James O'Reilly 


83 


— 











Rev. C- Bertiand Bower 


24 















30 











Salem and Blanchard Streets 


160 











Total 














LOWTI I 


HOUSING AUTHORITY.' 








State Pbocjlw 


No. of Units 


J^o. of Non-White Families 






1961 


1962 


1963 


1964 




292 





I 


5 


5 


Lakeriew Avenue 


12 














Aiken Street 


20 














Concord Street 


16 














Hale Street 


15 














Total 










5 


Fedejlvl Pkog&am 












North Common Village 


536 





1 


2 


2 




165 














BidlOp Marfcham ViUage 


372 


3 


1 


6 


6 


Total 




3 


o 






M.\I_DEN 


HOUSING AUTHORITY" 








N T & TV Pv^rW^ A %.ff 


-Vo. of Units 


-Vo. 


of Xon 


-White Families 






1961 


1962 


1963 


1964 




285 


1 


1 


8 


18 


Fedolu. Peoc&.\m 


















12 


3 


14 


MEX)FORD 


HOUSING AUTHORITY 






St ATT PWMS AM 


No. of Units 


No. 


of Non-White Fami'ies 






2961 


1962 


1963 


1964 




230 




n 


3 


1 


Fedejl\l Frocil\m 












150 


2 


2 


1 


2 


RX\'ERE 


HOUSING AUTHORITY 








State PkocjuiM 


No. of Units 




of Non- White Families 






1961 


1962 


1963 


1964 




286 














Feoc&al Program 














149 














Hotsi.xc For The Fi nm v 














?2 














23 



State Program 

Mystic River 
Clarendon Hill 
Capon Court 

Total 
Federal Program 
Mystic View 
Highland Garden 
Prospect Hill Towers 

Total 



SOMERVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Xo. of Units Xo. of Non- 



240 
216 
64 



520 

216 
42 
100 



1961 


1 

1 



1962 


2 



358 



State Program 



TAUNTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non- 



Riverside Apartments 
Highland Heights 

Total 
Federal Program 

Fairfax Gardens 

Hillcrest Terrace (Elderly) 



102 
40 



142 

150 
24 



Total 
State Program 



174 



1961 
11 

2 

13 
13 

13 



1962 
13 

3 

16 
13 

13 



White 
1963 

2 



1 

3 

1 


1 



White 
1963 
18 

3 



Families 
1964 


1 

I 



WATERTOWN HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non- 

1961 1962 

West End 168 

East End 60 

Waverly Avenue (Elderly) 40 



Total 

State Program 
Memorial Drive 

State Program 

Edward Street 
Viking Gardens 

Total 

State Program 

Creston Avenue 
Webster Avenue 
Liberty Avenue 
Warren Avenue 

Total 
Federal Program 
Spring Court 



268 

WEYMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non- 

1961 1962 
208 1 1 

WINTHROP HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non- 

1961 1962 
73 

30 — — 



103 







WOBURN HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non- 



68 
60 
48 
40 



216 
100 



1961 






1962 






White 

1963 






White 
1963 


White 
1963 




White 

1963 






Families 
1964 
15 
4 

19 

14 
1 

15 

Families 
1964 






Families 
1964 


Families 
1964 





Families 
1964 







24 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 
BASIS OF COMPLAINTS OF ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION 
Current Report Year ^1/ 1. 64— 12;31/64) 

Public 

Private 
Housing 



Basis 
Race or Color 
Religious Creed 
National Origin 

Vncesin. 

Total 



Employ 
mrnt 
112 



16 

234 



371 



108 



o 




110 



Public Accom- Fair 

Housing modations Education 

2 22 

1 

2 



n 







Total 
244 
8 
20 
234 
o 

508 



DISPOSITION OF CASES CLOSED BY THE COMMISSION 

Cl'RRENT REPORT YEAR 

Public 

Private 
Housing 



Disposition 
Final Order 



Employ 
mcnt 



* Public 
Housing 



Accom- Fair 
modations Education 



Total 



Cease and Desist* 





4 





1 





5 


After Investigation 














and Conference 














(Conciliated) 


171 


57 





19 


1 


248 


Lack of Probable Cause 


39 


25 





5 





69 


Lack of Jurisdiction 


23 














23 


Withdrawn 


2 


3 











5 


Total 


236 


88 





25 


1 


350 



• One case ordered dismissed no violation. 

• 56% of complainants involving private 
housing. 



hoiiiin? were offered and or obtained 



Cumulative (11/10/46—12/31/64) 

Public 





Employ- 


Private 


Public 


Accom- 


Fair 




Disposition 


ment 


Housing 


Housing 


modations Education 


Total 


Final Order 


9 


10 





2 





14 


After Investigation 














and Conference 














(Conciliated) 


2860 


297 


11 


240 


16 


3224 


Lack of Probable Cause 


890 


162 


4 


144 


11 


1211 


Lack of Jurisdiction 


55 


29 





13 





97 


Withdrawn 


90 


17 


1 


9 


2 


119 


Total 


3S95 


515 


16 


408 


29 


4865 



LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION 

THE COMMOMVEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION. 
41 TREMONT STREET. BOSTON S. NOVEMBER 2. 1964 
The Honor.\bi_e Kevin H. ■White. Secretary of the Co\i?.:onwealth. State House. 
Boston 33, Ma5s.\chl setts. 

Dear Sir: In accordance with the provisions of General Laws, chapter 30. sections 
33 and 33A, as amended, the Massachusetts Commission Aeains: Divcriraination does 
hereby submit two bills embodying recommended legisla::: T. r . -r 

bills have been submitted to the Counsel for the House of Rep:rie:.ra;:\ ei as required 
by law. 



25 



The recommended bills are: 

1. An Act Relating to Discrimination Against Employees and Persons Seeking 
Employment because of Sex. 

2. An Act Permitting the Keeping of Records of Race, Color, Religious Creed, 
National Origin, Age and Ancestry as directed by the Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination. 

On 1 July 1965 the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will become effective. Included in the 
federal law is the prohibition of discrimination in employment based on sex. So that 
the federal law" will not preempt this area of unlawful employment discrimination 
this Commission is sponsoring legislation to include the word "sex" as part of the 
formula of race, color, religious creed, national origin, age and ancestry. 

Section 709 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 contains provisions which 
will require employers subject to the act to maintain records of the race, color, etc., 
of employees as directed and supervised by the Equal Employment Opportunity Com- 
mission. 

So that Massachusetts law will not be in conflict with the federal law this Commis- 
sion is sponsoring the above-referenced bills to avoid such a conflict arising in this 
area of employment record keeping. 

Respectfully submitted, 
Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination. 
By: Walter H. Nolan, 

Executive Secretary. 

H.46 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

.\n Act relative to discrimination against emplovfls and persons seeking employ- 
ment BECAUSE OF SEX. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, 
and by the authority of the same, as follows: 

Section 1. Subsection 6 of section 3 of said Chapter 15 IB, as so appearing, is hereby 
amended by inserting after the word "origin", in line 3, the word: — , sex. 

Section 2. Subsection 8 of said section 3 of said chapter 151B, as so appearing, is 
hereby amended by inserting after the word "origin", in line 7, the word: — , sex. 

Section 3. Subsection 9 of said section 3 of said chapter 151B, as so appearing, is 
hereby amended by inserting after the word "origin", in line 4, the word: — , sex. 

Section 4. Subsection 1 of section 4 of said chapter 151B, as so appearing, is 
hereby amended by inserting after the word "origin", in line 2, the word: — , sex. 

Section 5. Subsection 2 of said section 4 of said chapter 15 IB, as so appearing, is 
hereby amended by inserting after the word "origin", in line 2, the word: — , sex. 

Section 6. Subsection 3 of said section 4 of said chapter 151 B, as so appearing, is 
hereby amended by inserting after the word "origin", in line 7 and in line 10, in each 
instance, the word: — , sex. 

Section 7. Section 9 of said chapter 15 IB, as so appearing, is hereby amended 
by inserting after the word "age", in line 12, the words: — or repeal any provision in 
chapter one hundred and forty-nine which establishes standards, terms or conditions 
of employment which are applicable to females only. 

Section 9 of said chapter 15 IB, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by 
inserting after the word "origin", in line 8, the word "sex", — so as to read as follows: 
— Section 9. The provisions of this chapter shall be construed liberally for the accom- 
plishment of the pur{>oses thereof, and any law inconsistent with any provision hereof 
shall not apply, but nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to repeal section 
ninety-eight of chapter two hundred and seventy-two or any other law of this com- 
monwealth relating to discrimination because of race, color, religious creed, national 
origin, sex or ancestry, and nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to repeal 
sections twenty-four A to twenty-four J, inclusive, of chapter one hundred and 



26 



forty-nine or any other law ot the commonwealth relating to discrimination because 
of age or repeal any provision in chapter one hundred and forty-nine which estab- 
lishes standards, terms or conditions of employment which are applicable to females 
onlv: but. as to acts dcchired unlawful by section four, the procedure provided in 
this chapter shall, while pending, be exclusive; and the final determination therein 
shall exclude any other action, civil or criminal, based on the same grievance of 
the individual concerned. If such individual institutes any action based on such 
griivancc without resorting to the procedure provided in this chapter, he may not 
subsc-ijuiiitlv resort to tlie procedure herein. 
H.47 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
\n Act permitting the kefping of records of race, color, religious creed, national 

ORIGIN, AGE AND ANCESTRY AS DIRECTED BY THE MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AgAINST 

Discrimination. 

lie it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court as- 
sembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 

Section 4. subsection 3, of chapter 151B of the General Laws, is hereby amended by 
changing the period at the end of the subsection to a comma and by adding there- 
after the following: — except pursuant to the following provisions: — any employer, 
employment agency or labor organization shall make and keep such records which 
are necessary to comply with section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, of which 
tlie commission deems desirable to effectuate the purposes of this chapter and as 
may from lime to time be ordered by the commission. The commission may pre- 
scribe by regulation such standards or rules as may be appropriate to effectuate the 
proNisions hereto. No employer, employment agency, or labor organization shall make 
or keep any such record except pursuant hereto; and all such records shall be taken 
in a manner, and kept for such time, and in all respects shall be subject to the super- 
vision and control of the commission. 



LEGISLATION FAVORED BY THE COMMISSION 

The MCAD will favor enactment of the following bills: 

H-997 To clarify the right of the MCAD to award compensatory damages. 

H-998 To remove the 3-day notice requirement for obtaining injunctions 
against respondents in housing complaints. 

H-46 To add sex as a basis of discrimination in addition to the existing for- 
mula of race, color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry. 

H-2328 "True name" bill requiring public notice of the identity of owners and 
persons in control of real estate. 

H-776 To include commercial real estate within the fair housing laws. 
Three bills, S-316, H-47 and S-657, would allow employers to maintain records on 
race, color, creed or national origin after employment. These bills, designed to meet 
the same problem, entail differences vital to the operation of the law and the enforce- 
ment by the MCAD of the pending Federal Civil Rights Bill. The MCAD will sup- 
port H-47, its own bill. 



LEGISLATION OPPOSED BY THE COMMISSION 

The MCAD will oppose enactment of the following bills: 

H-779 To increase the exemption under the fair housing practice law from 
owner-occupied 2-family dwellings to owner-occupied 3-famiIy dwellings. 
S-652 Would change the name of the MCAD to the Massachusetts Commission 
for Human Rights and augment the Commissioners to seven thus adding 
three. The term of office would be extended from four to five years. 
Salaries would be increased to $12,500 for the chairman and $9,000 for 
the members respectively. 



27 



The bdlowing bills all apply to some zspett of the same subject matter, "slumlords". 
S-516 "Slumlord" bill to enforce minimum standards of Gtne^B for human 

habitaticm under the state sanitary code. 
H -1623 Same as S-516 

S-517 "Slumlord" bill to enforce the sanitary code in tenement houses by ap- 

poinonent of receivers and eslab':>hmer.i of a revolving fund. 
S-2572 Same as S-517 

S-257 "Slumlord" bill — proof of violati : r : : t sanitary code shall be grounds 

for defense against eviction proieei 
H-31G0 Same as S-257 

H-2312 Calls for creaticxi of a < ppHal commissi&Mi to investigate the desirability 
for establishing a housing court or other agency to deal with rdation- 
sitdp httKcen landlords and tenants and the laws, codes and regnlatimis 
governing that rdatkmship. 
Althoi^^ these bills, if enacted, would not in any way inv<dve the MCAD in their 
administration, their subject matter greatly omditions minority groups. For this 
reason the Commission is interested in enactment of a bill which would afford addi- 
tional protection to the minority group?. 



F-\1R tDlXATIONAL PR.\CTICES LWV 

Ever since 1956 when the J : f iiiti : ; 

ing the Fair Educational F:i : : t r ^^ 

independent schools have if 
belief that students may : 

this state and receive fair - 
an applicant any quesdor. 
or racial background. Tr r 
mission have dwindled 
from each institution 

"quotas" in their a. r: 
letter and the ^irit ^ . ^ ^ _ : : . ; r . : 

dqiendent educatiwi r ^ _ r - . • . r .: z: ; .i 

indicate a proliferat:: > 
beiship Usts^ Certain i 

ceived and no substan.._ . ^ . _ r . . . ex 

tkn by the CranmissicMi. 



UNIT OF STUDY 

•a>ISCRIMINATIOV — DANGER TO DEMOCR.\CY- 

Some ten yearj : :t : t e: e Division 

of Civic Educati:: rntitled 

"'Discrimination. I e reen 

printed and disi: 7 

and public higii >... 7 i_ De- 
mocracy"', and other : t J : ; n. now 
Deputy State Commii.>. : Z . : : t ziiTerial 
cmitained in the firs: : > ;i i: 1t i i : r ::: I'A 
students in the Sute C ^ Z : 
approved <rf offerii^ : : t 

Over the years at le^ii n:: , : 

the Commissi<»'s willingness :: r„: 

student in a given course coul" „e . . L^: _ z . : i' 

Adviser, Dr. Clarence P. Quim; .rated with Dr. Cu: 

two revisions of the study imi: .Dies in several c: .- zt 

high schools in Massachusetts. 5 -e::r :e i \ i : oals and teachers ler r.^e 

direction the booklets were used. z^\c i>ecn iiked lo ccnnner.: r. ireir cZ-c:2L::nal 



28 



aluc. A complete report will be made available in nexi years annual report of the 
. .>mmission. Requests for copies exhausted our supplies in 1964 but teachers Mill 
tmd ample numbers available for the 1963-66 programs. 

The 1965 revision of the -Discriminaiion. Danger to Democracy" booklet will ha\e 
several suggestions which we believe will be helpful in presenting the State and Na- 
tional Civil Rights challenges. There is a brief ston of the anti-discrimination move- 
ment in Massachusetts, culminating in the various laws now on the statute books. 
Discrimination is defined and prejudice explained. Our educational system "has the 
responsibiliiv of imparting the kind of information and providing the means of action 
whercbv voung people hopefully may grow up equipped with sound and wholesome 
understandings and a will to behave as good dtizens behave". 

Certain activities are suggested to motivate a living interest in the sociological prob- 
lems which are likely to be found in manv communities. These include writing slo- 
gans; writing on the theme A Lesson Mv Parents Taught Me About Understanding, 
Respect, and Good Will for Others"; preparing a socio-drama in which students depict 
former U. S. Presidents and quote them with respect to "good will towards men"; 
selecting all-.\merican teams in various sports and note the different racial stocks in- 
volved. 

Quoutions from great national documents are given to show that we have historic 
expressions of basic .\merican rights. These are followed by an enumeration of the 
various federal and sute agencies which are concerned with the promotion and pro- 
tection of d\il rights. The 19 States which have organized F E P Commissions and 
Commissions .\gainst Discrimination are enumerated so that students may get in- 
formation on other state oi^anizations if they wish to do so. Questions for debate or 
round-table discussion are suggested. In addition there are several pages of up-to- 
date reading matter, classified for teachers, fcr above average students and for all 
students. 

Perhaps the most useful part of the Unit will be fomid to be the appendix contain- 
ing twelve case histories illustrative of the work of the Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination. These cases were selected from the Commission's files to illus- 
trate almost every kind of complaint made to or instituted by the Commission since 
its organization in 1946. Enough facts about complainant and respondent are given 
to i>ermit the student to see how the problems arise, how divergent opinions are 
anah-zed and treated and how the Commission has acted in the various confrontations. 
Such issues as fair employment practices, fair housing practices, fair treatment in 
school admissions, fair treatment in the occupancy of motel accommodations, and 
other examples of the struggle to insure fair play for all, are exemplified in these 
interesting case histories. 

The usefulness of the Study Unit has been generally acknowledged by the teachers 
to whom it has been introduced. The Ccmmission is readv to make suggestions for 
the practical use of the booklets whenever a school system requests such aid. Copies 
of the new edition will be available, we expect, in April or May, but will certainly 
be ready for distribution for the opening of schools in September. Teachers should 
ask for as many copies as there are students in their various divisions. Send such 
requests to; Ma s sachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 41 Tremont Street 
Boston 8, Xfassachusetts. 

RESE.4lRCH DmSION 

With the apj>ointment of a Research Director, a new Research Division w-as estab- 
lished in April. With the Director, the Commission examined opportunities for ex- 
panding its research facilities. It was felt that research could play a role in helping 
the Commission study c2Lse trends and problems, as well as in providing the general 
community with data and insights on discrimination in Massachusetts, but the pro- 
gram would have to be adapted to a time of shifting concerns and emphasis in civil 
rights and realistically geared to the Commission's limited research funds and per- 
sonnel. 

By December, the tentative outlines for a research program with two fimctions — 
internal and extenial — had been sketched in; some pilot approaches and studies had 



29 



been completed and others had been readied for application; and an experimental 
organizational framework, predicated on professional volunteer assistance, was in low 
gear with hopes of picking up speed in 1965: 

The joUouing projects were completed in 1964: 

1. An analysis of a Harvard University doctoral dissertation based on the Com- 
mission's work, prepared for the Commissioners and members of a special study com- 
mittee appointed to evaluate the Commission's administration of the anti-discimina- 
tion law. 

2. The organization of a Research Advisory Council, representing major academic 
centers, and several social and public agencies, to provide active consultation on long- 
range and on-gcing Commission research and assist in the formation of a "corps" of 
technical and administrative volunteers. 

3. The design and testing in 10 interviews of a follow-up questionnaire-technique 
for successful housing cases, in which complainants, respondents and others are in- 
terviewed six months after a complainant receives a housing accommodation by a 
disposition of the Commission, to determine whether the complainant has remained 
and the degree of integration he has achieved. 

4. Coordination with the industrial-conferential program on minority emplovment 
patterns, headed by Commissioner Ruth M. Batson, for which the Research Division 
prepared draft questionnaires, equal opportunity statements, and gathered pertinent 
background materials for investigations of minority employment trends in hotel and 
taxicab industries. 

5. A pilot studv of the major utilities in Boston, currently engaged in equal em- 
ployment programs to open new opportunities for Negroes, based on depth-interviews 
of leading officers of three companies and a written report on white-Negro employment 
statistics. Problems in launching such programs and new techniques for reaching the 
Negro community were aired. 

6. Analysis of data gathered in 1963 on Negro emplovment bv 23 ^\'o^ceste^ retail 
stores. 2% of the total employee population was Negro; but only little more than 
one-half of one percent of these were employed in "visible ' occupations. 

7. Analysis of data gathered in 1963 on disposition of Negroes in 216 business 
concerns in Pittsfield. A useful initial-step survey of a community, with a Negro 
population totaling imder 1% of the total population. 

The following projects were readied for completion in 1965: 

1. A communications survey, to determine the degree and problems of public 
awareness of MCAD powers and functions. Fullv designed bv December 1964, the 
survey was conceived as a mailed questionnaire to a cross-section of active civil rights 
workers. Hoj>efully, findings will assist in development of new public education pro- 
grams on the Commission and the laws it administers. 

2. A study of the initial employment experiences of Negro and white recent voca- 
tional school graduates in Boston, planned in cooperation with the Social Relations 
Department, Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, under a grant from the Social 
Security Administration. Arrangements with the Boston School System for simple data 
on local graduates were almost completed by December, 1964. 

3. A survey of anti-discrimination policies and practices of state governmental 
agencies administering contracts with private companies was designed and methods 
( f administering a pilot study with a few agencies initially were explored. 

The following projects were intensively explored as likeh longer-iange possibilities: 

1. A coding system for MC.\D cases to permit study of case characteristics and 
trends as a guide to the Commissioners in their continuing administration of the 
laws. 

2. A research coordinating service to assist scholars and agencies in Massachusetts 
on administrative problems involved in research in discrimination to provide them 
with statistical documentation and bibliographies, and stimulate new research de- 
signed to fill continuing research gaps. 



30 



ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RULING 

Mr. Walter H. Nolan 
Executive Secretary 
Massachusetts Commission 

Against Discrimination 
41 Tremont Street 
Boston. Mass. 
Dear Sir: 

Vou ha\c requested my opinion of the legality of Ruling No. 2 of the Rulmgs In- 
terpretative of the Fair Employment Practice Law, which provides as follows: 

"Inquiries, answers to which would directly or indirectly disclose a person's race, 
color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry, are designated as unlawful 
practices when such inquiries are made PRIOR to employment unless based upon 
a bona fide occupational qualification. No restriction is placed on inquiries made 
AI- I ER employment provided the information obtained is not used for purposes 
of discrimination." 

The Commission is authorized by G. L. c. 151B, ss. 2, 3 (5) to promulgate regulations 

which effectuate the policies of the chapter. The answer to your request depends upon 

whether Ruling No. 2 does effectuate any such policy. 
The Fair Practices Laws consider the problem of inquiries in four places. In three 

of these, relating to fair practices in bonding and insurance, housing and education, 

inquiries into certain matters are prohibited only when asked of applicants. It is, 

accordingly, unlawful: 

'Tor any person engaged in the insurance or bonding business, or his agent, to 
make any inquiry or record of any person seeking a bond or surety bond condi- 
tioned upon the faithful performance of his duties or to use any form of applica- 
tion, in connection with the furnishing of such bond, which seeks information 
relative to the race, color, religious creed, national origin or ancestry of the person 
to be bonded." G. L. c. 151B, s. 4(3A); 

for a person covered by the fair housing practices law: 

"to cause to be made any written or oral inquiry or record concerning the race, 
creed, color, national origin or national ancestry of the person seeking to rent or 
lease or buy any such accommodation or land. . . ." G. L. c. 151B, s. 4(7); see 
also id. s. 4 (6); 

or for an educational institution: 
"To cause to be made any written or oral inquiry concerning the race, religion, 
color or national origin of a person seeking admission. . . ." G. L. c. 151C, s. 2 (c). 
The Fair Employment Practice Law, however, contains broader language. It is an 

unfair employment practice: 

'Tor any employer or employment agency to print or circulate or cause to be 
printed or circulated any statement, advertisement or publication, or to use any 
form of application for employment or to make any inquiry or record in connec- 
tion with employment, which expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, spec- 
ification or discrimination as to race, color, religious creed, national origin, age 
or ancestry, or any intent to make any such limitation, specification or discrimina- 
tion, or to discriminate in any way on the ground of race, color, religious creed, 
national origin, age, or ancestry, unless based upon a bona fide occupational quali- 
fication." G. L. c. 151B, s. 4(3). 

The use of the language, "in connection with employment" rather than "in con- 
nection with the furnishing . . ." or "seeking . . ." which are used in the other 
quoted sections cannot be assumed to have been accidental. It must be remembered 
that an inquiry of the type proscribed need not necessarily be discriminatory. Indeed, 
there are circumstances under which dynamic social progress requires that records 
be made which distinguish between various racial or religious groups or the like, 
and there must be inquiries to achieve this goal. The legislative prohibition on in- 
quiries and records must reflect determinations that such inquiries themselves often 
evoke consciousness of difference for reasons which the statute's basic policy opposes; 
and that the dangers that those whose propensities are discriminatory would utilize 



31 



information derived from the inquiries or records to work discrimination in ways too 
subtle easily to detect exceed any good which might on occasion result. It is perfectly 
within the legislative province to determine that the relative importance of the factors 
will vary among the several areas of human activity which are covered by the Fair 
Practice Laws. In my considered judgment, s. 4 (3) is based upon a finding, which 
seems credible in the light of human experience, that the employer-employee rela- 
tionship, as opposed to those others to which the statutes relate, is such that the 
inquiries or record-keeping described in s. 4 (3), at any time create excessive dangers 
and ought to be proscribed. 

Records concerning age are treated separately by the statutes. Sections 24A-24J of 
c. 149 are not repealed by c. 15 IB. G. L. c. 151 B, s. 9. Section 24D of c. 149 requires 
employers to keep "records of the ages of all persons employed by him." Reading 
together G. L. c. 151B, s. 4 (3) and G. L. c. 149, s. 24D, the employer is prohibited 
by s. 4 (3) from making inquiries or keeping records of the ages of applicants; but 
must keep such records of actual employees. 

For the foregoing reasons, it is mv considered judgment that Rule 2 is a proper 
rule in so far as it relates to age; but is otherwise unlawful. 

Very truly yours, 
Edward AV. Brooke 

MEMOR.\NDA OF AGREEMENT 

WITH THE FEDEILAL GOVERNMENT 

FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION 
to achieve 

EQUAL OPPORTUXITY IX HOUSIXG 

Memorandum of Understanding 
between 

The President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in Housing 

and 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 
The President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in Housing (President's Com- 
mittee) pursuant to Presidential Executive Order >s'o. 11063 of November 20, 1962 
(Executive Order), and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Commission Against Dis- 
crimination ('State Commission), pursuant to Annotated Laws of the Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts, Ch. 121, s. 26FF re) (Supp. 1961); Ch. 151B, ss. 1 to 10 (Supp. 1961), 
as amended 1963; Chs. 197, 469, 613; Ch. 6, s. 56 (Supp. 1961), as amended 1963, Ch. 
719; Ch. 112, s. 87-AAA (Supp. 1961) on behalf of their respective programs and fields 
of responsibility enter into this Memorandum of Understanding to achieve equal 
opportunity and a free choice in housing and agree: 

I Independent Fields of Responsibilities 

Neither the Executive Order and the fields of responsibility thereunder, nor the 
State Laws and the fields of responsibility thereunder is intended to preempt or 
supersede the other, and each such Executive Order and State Laws, including the 
respective fields of responsibilities, administration, and enforcement thereof, is sepa- 
rate and independent of the other. 

II Liaison and Exchange of Information 

Cooperation between the President's Committee (including departments and agen- 
cies covered by the Executive Order) and the State Commission in the performance of 
their respective fields of responsibilities, including compliance and enforcement pro- 
grams, is properly in the public interest to assure fair, effective, and efficient admin- 
istration, and accordingly: 

A. The President's Committee and each department and agency in the Executive 
Branch of the Federal Government, insofar as any such department's or agency's 
functions relating to the provision, rehabilitation, or operation of housing and re- 
lated facilities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are subject to the Executive 
Order, will furnish the State Commission copies of applicable orders, rules, regula- 



32 



lions, procedures, and polio- issuances implementing the Executive Order and any 
amendments and supplements thereto as mav thereafter be issued; and 

B. The Stale Commission will furnish the President s Committee and the several 
deparimcnis and agencies, covered bv the Executive Order and operating in Mas- 
sachusetts, copies of its rules and regulations, procedures and police- issuance im- 
plementing the State Lan-s and any amendments and supplements thereto as may 
hereafter be issued: and 

C. Compliance with the Executive Order being the primary- dutv of the depart- 
ments and agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government ha^ing re- 
sponsibilities under the Executive Order, each such deoartment and a^encv will 
l\) dentate an officer or officers who will be responsible for liaison between the 
State Commission and such department or agenc\- and promptly adA-ise the State Com- 
mission of such designations, and (2) furnish to the State Commission, through 
designated liaison channels, copies of the applicable rules and regulations, pro- 
cedures and policv issuances referred to in II-A above, and such prosjam and 
operating information as may be appropriate to the responsibilities of the State 
Commission; and 

D. The State Commission will (I) designate an officer or officers who be 
responsible for liaison between the President's Committee and the departments and 
agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government having responsibilities 
under the Executive Order and operating in Massachusetts and (2) furnish to the 
President's Committee and such departments and agencies, through designated liai- 
son channels, copies of applicable State Commission rules and regulations, proce- 
dures and policv issuances referred to in Item II-B above, and such program and 
of>erating information as mav be appropriate to the responsibilities of the Presi- 
dent's Committee and of such departments and agencies. 

Ill Compliance and Enforcement Cooperation 
As mav be appropriate to their respective fields of responsibilities, the President s 
Committee Mirectly or through department and agencv liaison channels) and the 
State Commission each will, in accordance with applicable law, cooperate with and 
advise the other on all matters of enforcement and compliance, including the ex- 
change of information as to complaints filed, hearings and related proceedings, and 
final compliance action taken and thereby assure fair. efiEecdve, and efficient adminis- 
tration in achieving the goal of equal opportunitv in housing. 

rV^ Implementing Documents 

In furtherance of the Federal-State cooperation contemplated bv this Memorandum 
of Understanding to assure the achievement of equal opportunitv and a free choice 
in housing, without discrimination based on race, color, creed, or national origin, it 
is understood and agreed that the State Commission and each department and agencv 
covered bv the Executive Order mav, to the extent permitted by applicable Federal 
and State law and not inconsistent herewith, also enter into separate cooperation 
agreements, amend any existing cooperation agreements, and issue or execute other 
dcKuments as mav be deemed necessan.- to appropriate to present detailed plans or 
othervvise to implement enforcement and compliance rules, policies and procedures 
in the fields of their respective responsibilities. 

Executed by the undersigned, on the dates sho-^sTi below, pursuant to the respective 
authorizations of the President's Committee on Equal Opportunitv in Housing and 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination: 
Mildred H. Mahonev 

Chairman 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination 
(May 21, 1964> 

D.WID L-\W-RENCE 

Chairman 
President's Committee on Equal 
Opportunitv in Housing 
(May 21.. 1964) 



33 



MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

To achieve stronger programs for equalizing employment opportunity and to permit 
program administration which is simpler and more effective for the administering 
agencies and the parties involved, THE PRESIDENT S COMMITTEE ON EQUAL 
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY and the MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION 
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION propose to engage in cooperative undertakings. These 
agencies share the conviction that their objectives are best served by exchanging in- 
formation, achieving close liaison in case handling where there are substantial common 
interests, and participating in concerted endeavors as needs arise and when not pro- 
hibited by law or administrative regulations. 

To commence the accomplishment of this objective, THE PRESIDENT S COM- 
MITTEE ON EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY and the MASSACHU- 
SETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION will undertake the following 
arrangements as soon as practicable: 

1. Cooperation between the agencies will be greatly facilitated by increased knowl- 
edge of the other's op>erations. Therefore, in addition to exchanging all annual and 
other oflficial repKDrts relating to caseload and agency programs, each agency will reg- 
ularly inform the other of its complaint cases which involve persons who might also 
have been served by the other agency. 

2. Communication between groups is best accomplished if there is an established 
point of contact. Therefore, each agencv will designate one of its oflBcers as Liaison 
Officer with the other agency. 

3. .An important opportunity for cooperation which will benefit all concerned 
occurs when a person complains about the same matter to both agencies. Therefore, 
the procedure for processing complaints in each agency will include a request of each 
complainant as to whether he had filed a companion complaint with the other agency. 
If he has done so, the Liaison OflBcer will contact at Liaison Ofi&cer of the other agency 
so that information can be exchanged between them. The amoimt of information ex- 
changed will be governed by the organization's obligation to its government and its 
obligation to the parties involved in the proceedings before it in each case. The 
information will include copies of the formal process papers in the case, particularly 
the complaint and the final determination. Agency investigations of companion com- 
plaints will be coordinated, where practicable. 

4. The public cannot be effectively served unless it is acquainted with the services 
available. Therefore, each agency will inform its complainants of the services which 
mav be available to him from the other agency, including such descriptive literature 
as has been made available, unless the complainant has already filed a companion 
complaint with the other agency. 

5. In keeping with the spirit of this agreement, the respective agencies will seek 
to establish and sustain active liaison and cooperation in major programs and tech- 
niques of education, information, and affirmative action. 

6. The statistical data necessarv to the operations of both agencies can be most 
effectively collected and analyzed by each agency if the data sought is compatible and, 
even more desirable, if the data sought is identical. The agencies will immediately 
undertake discussions to accommodate their reporting systems to this end. 



August 6, 1964 



THE PRESIDENTS COMMITTEE ON 
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

Bv HOBART TAYLOR. JR. 

Executive \'ice Chainuan 



MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION 
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION 



August 6, 1964 



By MILDRED H. MAHONEY 

Chairman 



34 



Memorandum of Understanding 
betueen 

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 
and 

The Federal Housing Administration 
The Federal Housing Administration, hereinafter referred to as FHA. pursuant :o 
Presidential Executive Order No. 11063 of November 20. 1962. (Executive Order on 
Equal Opportunity in Housing) and FHA Regulations (Sections 200/300 to 200.355) 
issued thereunder, and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, here- 
inafter referred to as the Commission, pursuant to the Massachusetts Fair Practices 
Act (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151 B. as amended), on behalf of their 
respective programs and fields of responsibilities in housing enter into this Memo- 
randum of Understanding to provide cooperation and mutual support in their respec- 
tive efforts to achieve equal opportunitv in housing and to assure compliance with 
the said Executive Order, and FHA Regulations, and said Massachusetts Fair Practices 
.\ct and the regulations thereunder, by those individuals or firms utilizing the programs 
of FHA agree as follows that: 

1. In the furtherance of the objectives of this Memorandum of Understanding, 
as new programs in housing are authorized by law or as FHA develops new procedures 
or revises old procedures, it will incorporate such notices, certificates and provisions 
in its forms and agreements as it deems necessary and feasible in a manner and form 
similar to the notices, certificates and provisions currently contained in FHA forms 
and agreements and required to be executed by individuals and firms utilizing the 
programs and services of FH.\, such as t±ie notices, certificates and provisions con- 
tained in the documents set forth in sub-sections (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 4 
herein and which are made a part of this agreement as fully as if they had been 
expressly promulgated for this purpose. 

2. During the first week of each month, the FHA will provide the Commission 
with regular lists of proposed project approvals made by it during the preceding 
month. These lists will include such non-confidential matters as location and number 
of lots or number of apartments, as the case may be, proposed price range and iden- 
tity of sponsors and builders and, if known, the mortgages. 

3. Upon receipt of such notification, if it has not previously done so, the Com- 
mission will provide all such FHA program participants in the Commomvealth of 
Massachusetts with copies of the Massachusetts Fair Pracdces Act and the Regulations 
issued thereunder. 

4. a. The FHA Application Forms for Mortgage Insurance contain a notice con- 
cerning state anti-discrimination laws in general terms, as follows: 

STATE LA^VS— DISCRIMINATION AND SEGREGATION 

FHA suggests that care be exercised by those building rental or sales housing to 
determine that there is full compliance with any state or local laws outlawing dis- 
crimination and segregation in housing financed with Federal Government insurance 
or guarantees or publicly assisted housing. 

The FHA expects you to conduct your operations in coniormitv with the provi- 
sions of state or local laws. Any instance where the Commissioner finds that a 
valid determination has been made of your non-compliance with anv applicable 
anti-discrimination or anti-segregation laws, may result in no further extension of 
FHA business with you pending the satisfactory correction of the non-compliance, 
b. Each applicant requesting issuance of FHA Letter of Subdivision Feasibility, 
shall be required to sign a certificate contained on Form 2084 setting out an agree- 
ment in the following language: 

"By submitting the accompanying request for site eligibility and signing this 
certification, the builder, developer, seller or other signatory agrees with the Federal 
Housing Administration that pursuant to the requirements of "the FHA Regulations, 
(a) neither it nor anyone authorized to act for it will decline to sell, rent or other- 
wise make available any of the properties or housing in the subdivision to a 
prospective purchaser or tenant because of his race, color, creed or national origin; 



35 



(b) it will comply with state and local laws and ordinances prohibiting discrimina- 
tion; and (c) failure or refusal to comply with the requirements of either (a) or 
(b) shall be a proper basis for the Commissioner to reject requests for future busi- 
ness with which the sponsor is identified or to take any other corrective action he 
may deem necessar\ to carry out the requirements of the Regulations." 
c. Each applicant requesting Pre-Application Analysis of Multi-family Housing 

Proposals shall be required to sign a certificate contained on FHA Form No. 2012 

setting out an agreement in the following language: 

Agreement 

"The undersigned agrees with the Federal Housing Administration that pursuant 
to the requirements of the FHA Regulations, (a) neither it nor anyone authorized 
to act for it will decline to sell, rent or otherwise make available any of the proper- 
ties or housing in the multifamily project to a prospective purchaser or tenant be- 
cause of his race, color, creed or national origin; (b) it will comply with state and 
local laws and ordinances prohibiting discrimination; and (c) failure or refusal to 
comply with the requirements of either (a) or (b) shall be a proper basis for the 
Commissioner to reject requests for future business with which the sponsor is 
identified or to take any other corrective action he may deem necessary to carry 
out the requirements of the Regulations." 

The Regulatory Agreement entered into at the time of endorsement for insurance 
shall also contain a provision in the following language: 

"Owners agree that there shall be full compliance with the provisions of (1) any 
state or local laws prohibiting discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, 
creed, or national origin; and (2) with the Regulations of the Federal Housing 
Administration providing for non-discrimination and equal opportunity in housing. 
It is understood and agreed that failure or refusal to comply with any such pro- 
visions shall be a proper basis for the Commissioner to take any corrective action 
he may deem necessary including, but not limited to, the rejection of future applica- 
tions for FHA mortgage insurance and the refusal to enter into future contracts 
of any kind with which the Owners are identified; and further, if the Oumers are 
a corporation or any other type of business association or organization which may 
fail or refuse to comply with the aforementioned provisions, the Commissioner shall 
have a similar right of corrective action (1) with respect to any individuals who are 
officers, directors, trustees, managers, partners, associates or principal stockholders 
of the Owners; and (2) with respect to any corporation or any other type of business 
association, or organization with which the officers, directors, trustees, managers, 
partners, associates or principal stockholders of the Owners may be identified." 

5. FHA will instruct all approved FHA mortgagees in Massachusetts that FHA has 
agreed to cooperate with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination in its 
effort to assure compliance with the Massachusetts Fair Practices Act. The FHA will 
ask the mortgagees to acknowledge the fact that they are aware of the Massachusetts 
Fair Practices Act as it relates to fair housing practices. FHA will also ask the 
mortgagees to acknowledge that they are aware of the Agency procedure which 
could produce a withdrawal of the mortgagee's FHA approval if there is a valid 
determination of non-compliance with the provisions of the Massachusetts Fair 
Practices Act by the mortgagee. 

6. The Commission will advise FHA of the receipt of any complaints involving 
housing under any of the FHA insurance programs. When notified by the Commission 
of any violations allegedly affecting FHA insured housing, the FHA Commissioner 
will make the appropriate check to ascertain that the violation does in fact involve 
an FHA insured loan. If, at the conclusion of the public hearing by the Board of 
Review, the allegation of a violation of the Massachusetts Fair Practices Act is sus- 
tained, the FHA Commissioner, upon being informed by the Commission of these 
findings, will promptly review the facts as developed, advise the violator of the 
appropriate action necessary to remedy the aforesaid violation, and if he or it fails 
to do so promptly, then the FHA Commissioner shall suspend processing of any 
further applications received in which the offending individual, firm or corporation 
is involved. 



36 



When the Commission satisfactorily conciliates any violation cf the Massachusetts 
Fair Practices Act, it will give FHA all pertinent facts involved. The FHA Commis- 
sioner will review the facts and where appropriate will resume processing applications 
presented bv the offending individual, firm or corporation. 

If a situation should arise in which the same party were charged with acts of 
discrimination in violation of FHA Regulations as well as the State Law, FHA will 
still render the Commission its fullest cooperation and collaboration, but, nevertheless, 
it reserves unto itself the right to take such appropriate action as it considers 
necessary in order to fulfill its responsibilities required by its regulations without 
awaiting the completion of any action or procedural requirements of the Commission. 
In such a situation, however, FHA will keep the Commission informed of the facts 
and of the actions involved in any such independent procedures. 

7. The Massachusetts Insuring Office and the Regional Multifamily Office will 
provide the Commission with a list of the acquired properties under its jurisdiction. 
These lists will be kept reasonably current by monthly supplements showing properties 
removed from availability and properties that have become available. A completely 
revised list will be furnished at intervals of not more than six months nor less 
than four months after the date of the initial list. The lists will also contain the 
names and addresses of the management brokers handling rental properties. The for 
sale properties are handled on a general or open listing. 

8. The Director of the local Insuring Office and the Director or the Multifamily 
Representative of the Regional Multifamily Office will be the liaison officers between 
the FHA and the Commission in all matters under the jurisdiction of their respective 
offices, and may from time to time review and evaluate the procedures which have 
been established. 

'J. I HA will notify all local public agencies and others with which it does business 
of its policy to operate on a n on -discriminatory basis and requests the local public 
agencies and others to make this policy clear to prospective builders, redevelopers, 
mortgagors and all other persons subject to the provisions of the Massachusetts Fair 
I'ractices Act. 

10. Up'jn written advance notice giving a reasonable time, FHA will make available 
to the Commission any required information not customarily regarded by the FHA 
as of a confidential nature, which is pertinent to the housing accommodations involved 
in a specific complaint or for an educational program conducted by the Commission. 

H. FHA will advise the Commission of situations involving FHA programs which 
appear to be a violation of the Massachusetts Fair Practices Act. 

12. Upon request, the Commission will allow FHA the use of the services of its 
investigatory facilities in instances where the use of such services may be feasible 
and are available. 

13. The Commission will inform FHA of its findings of any study or investigation 
conducted by it pertaining to open occupancy or fair housing opportunities for 
minorities. 

This Agreement shall become effective as of the date it is executed on behalf of 
the Commission. 

PHILIP N. BROWNSTEIN MILDRED H. MAHONEY 

Commissioner Chairman 
Federal Housing Administration Massachusetts Commission 

December 2, 1964 Against Discrimination 

December 2, 1964 



COMMISSION .ADVISORY AND REGIONAL COUNCILS — 1964 

The Commission has over the years obtained the cooperation of and worked with 
representative citizens in various sections of the commonwealth who have been 
interested in the Commission and the laws it administers. These civic minded individ- 
uals lent their efforts to implementing the Commission in its administration of 
the civil rights laws. They have through their community efforts endeavored to pro- 
mote good- will and cooperation among the population of the commonwealth. 



37 



The following is a list of the councils and their members. 
State Advisory Council Membership 

John J. Desmond, Jr., Chairman, Former State Commissioner of Education 
Dr. Gordon \\'. Allport. Professor of Psychology. Harvard University 
Rt. Rev. Robert P. Barry, LL.D., St. Clement's Church, West Somerville 
Clarence Q. Berger, Dean of University Planning and Development, Brandeis 
University 

Charles C. Dasey. Retired Manager, Cunard ^Vhite Star Line; Secretan,- Emeritus, 

Rotan,- Club of Boston 
Roland B. Gittlesohn, Rabbi, Temple Israel of Boston 

Dr. Owen B. Kiernan, Commissioner of Education, Commonwealth of Massachu- 
setts 

Richard R. Kriebel, Secretary, Polaroid Corporation 

Henn. M. Leen, Attorney, 31 Milk Street, Boston 

Paul Parks, Engineering Partner, Associated Architect & Engineer; 

Chairman NAACP Education Committee; Massachusetts Advisory Committee 
to U. S. Civil Rights Commission; Trustee. Peter Bent Brigham Hospital 

Dr. Charles A. Pinderhughes, M.D., 70 Brookledge Street, Boston, Mass. 

Rt. Rev. Anson Phelps Stokes, Jr., Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of 
Massachusetts 

Howard Thurman, Dean, Marsh Chapel, Boston University 

Benjamin A. Trustman, Senior Partner, Nutter, McClennen Fish, Attorneys, 
75 Federal Street. Boston 

Region.\l Council Membership 

Berkshire County 

Nelson F. Hine, Chairman 
Bruno Aron, Proprietor, Sunnybank, Lenox 
Doris Bardon, High Point Galleries, Lenox, Mass. 
Samuel E. Bloomberg, Attorney at Law 
Dr. James M. Bums, ^Villiams College 
Lincoln S. Cain, Attorney at Law- 
Rev. Joseph P. Cashin, Executive Director, Catholic Youth Center, 26 Melville 

Street, Pittsfield 
Bruce Crane, President, Crane i Company, Inc., Dalton 
Dennis J. Duffin, Lenox 

John \'. Geary, Executive Director, Berkshire Hills Conference 
David L. Gunn, Berkshire County Branch, NAACP 
Albert F. Litano, Local No. 225, lUE-CIO, Pittsfield 

Lincoln D. Lynch, Superintendent, Elementary Education, Pittsfield School Depart- 
ment 

Hans K. Maedor, Director, The Stockbridge School, Interlaken 
Emil Metropole, Realtor 
Feland A. Nevers, D.D.S. 

\Villiam J. Nolan, Sprague Electric Company, North Adams 

Arthur B. Phinnev, Unitarian Church, Pittsfield 

Miss L. Alberta Pierce, NAACP 

Mrs. Henry N. Roliison, Pittsfield 

Jay C. Rosenfeld, Pittsfield 

Samuel Sass, Pittsfield 

Rabbi Sanford D. Shanblatt, Congregation Knesses Israel. 11 Wendell Avenue, 
Pittsfield 

Hon. Paul A. Tamburello, United States Commissioner 

Frank T. Walker, Past President, New England Regional Conference, NAACP 
LaFayette ^V. \Valker, NAACP, Pittsfield 

Advisory Council on Housing 
Robert E. Segal, Chairman, Executive Director, Jewish Community Council of 

Metropolitan Boston 
Edward J. Barshak, Attorney at Law, 73 Tremont Street, Boston 



38 



Dr. Joseph Barth, Kings Chapel House 

Gerald A. Berlin, Atty., N. E. Region American Jewish Congress, 72 Franklin St., 
Boston 

Mrs. Mclnea .\. Cass, Boston Branch NAACP 

George A. Coleman, President, Brokers Institute of the Greater Boston Real 
Estate Board 

Dr. Thomas J. Curtin. Deputy Commissioner of Education, Massachusetts Depart- 
ment of Education 

Richard S. Dodd, VA & FH.\ Finance Manager, Campanelli Bros., Inc. 

Bertram A. Druker, Partner in the firm of John Druker & Son 

Maurice E. Frye, Jr., Street and Co., Inc.; President, Rental Housing Association 
of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board 

Ralph Fcnton, Factory Mutual Insurance Company 

.\lan Gartner, Chairman, Greater Boston CORE 

.Marvin E. Gilmore, Jr., Realtor 

Reuben Goodman, Esq., 80 Federal St., Boston 

Alfred ^\\ Halper, Home Builder 

Barry Hoffman, Pilgrim Management Corporation 

Ray Hofford, Executive Vice President, Greater Boston Real Estate Board; Massa- 
chusetts Association of Real Estate Boards 
M. Jacob Joslow, Executive Director, American Jewish Congress, N. E. Region 
Samuel Katz. Director, New England Region, American Jewish Committee 
Mrs. Elizabeth Keil, Massachusetts Federation for Fair Housing and Equal Rights 
Mrs. Helen Kistin, Research Associate, Joint Center for Urban Studies of M.I.T. 

and Harvard University; Chairman, Housing Advisory Research Committee 
Sol Kolack, Executive Director, New England Office, Anti-Defamation League 
of B'nai B'rith 

Rabbi Samuel I. Korff, Rabbinical Court of the Associated Synagogues 
Lee H. Kozol, .Assistant Attorney General, Director, Division of Civil Rights and 
Liberties 

John \V. Kunhardt, Vice President, Hunneman & Co., Inc.; Director, Brokers 
Institute 

Morris Kritzman, Cambridge Redevelopment Authority 
Jerry Levin, Regent Homes 

Luther Knight Macnair, Executive Secretary, Civil Liberties Union of Massa- 
chusetts 

Robert McPeck, Executive Vice President, Home Builders Association 
J. Westbrook McPherson, ACSW, Executive Director, Urban League of Greater 
Boston Inc. 

Edward C. Mendler, Jr., President, Fair Housing, Inc. 

Malcolm E. Peabody, Chairman of the Governor's Advisory Committee on 

Civil Rights 
Myron C. Roberts, Roberts Bros. 

L. Robert Rolde, Rental Housing Association of Greater Boston 

Mrs. Sadelle M. Sacks, Fair Housing, Inc. 

Professor Albert M. Sacks, 64 Lincoln Street, Belmont, Mass. 

Rev. Tex Sample, Massachusetts Council of Churches 

Milton H. Shaw, Wayside Realtors 

Robert F. Smith, Builder 

Mrs. Muriel S. Snowden, Co-Director, Freedom House, Inc. 

John A. Sullivan, Executive Secretary, New England American Friends Service 

Committee, 130 Brattle Street, Cambridge 
A. J. Tambone, President, A. J. Tambone, Inc., Realtors 

Mrs. George S. Tattan, Supervisor of Social Service, Division of Immigration and 

Americanization 
William J. White, White-Bison & Co., Inc. 

Walter K. Winchester, Vice President, First Realty Company of Boston 
Raymond H. Young, .Attorney at Law 



39 



Boston 

Carl J. Gilbert, Chairman, The Gillette Companv. Chairman of the Board 

Norman H. Abbott, Boston UnhFcisity, Director of Placement 

Julius Bernstein, Executive Secretary, Mass. .\PL-CIO, CivU Rights Committee 

Regional Director Jewish Labor Committee 
Frederic C. Church, Senior Partner, Boit, Dalton & Church 
John V. Connolly, Bnsnes Manager, Boston Photo Engravers' Union No. 3 
Hubert L. Connor, Director of .\pprenticeship. Division cf Apprentice Training, 

Mass. Department of Labor and Industries 
Norris G. Davis, Funeral DirectOT, Davis Funeral Home 

John E. Deady, Secretary-Treasarer, Boston Building and Construction Trades 
Council 

William H. Eastman, Second Vice President, John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance 
Company 

Stephen AV. Fardy, Executive Secretary, Bost<Mi Allied Printing Trades Council 
Ernest A. Johnson, Vice President, Massachusetts Building Congress 
James H. Mumma, Director of Personnel Administration, Raytheon Company, 
Lexington 

C. K. Neilson, Vice President-Personnel, New England Telephone and Tel^;raph 

Company, 185 Franklin Street, Boston 
Thomas A. Pappas. President, C. Pappas Company, Inc. 

Leonard T. Peters, Executive Vice President, Peters Employment Service, Inc. 
Sidney R. Rabb, Chairman of the Board, Stop S: Shop, Inc. 
Paul T. RothweU, Chairman of the Board, Bay State Milling Company 
Arthur Seserman, Executive \'ice Presidoit, Boston Branch National Metal Trades 
.\ssociation 

John S. Sullivan, Vice President, National Shawmut Bank of Boston, 40 Water 

Street, Boston 
Frank F. Vorenberg, President, Gilchrist Company 

Ledie E. Woods, Labor Advisor and Consultant, Ravtheon Companv, Lexington 
.Allan Ralph ZencwiLz, Management Consultant, 37 Beacon Street, Boston 

Cape Cod Council 
Dr. Lewis Paul Todd, Chairman, Editor "Social Education" 
James J. Bento, Attorney at Law 

Harvard H. Broadbent, Superintendent of Schools, Hyannis 
Anthony Ca sella. Chairman, Yarmouth School Committee 
Moncrieff M. Cochran, Sea Pines School, Brewster 

Norman H. Cook, Executive Secretary, Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce 
•Manuel Corey, Jr., Falmouth 

Charles -\. Coyle, Executive Secretary, Massachusetts Hotel Association 
*Rl Rev. Leonard J. Daley, Pastor, St. Francis Xavier Church 
Miss Eugenia Fortes, Hyannis 

Mrs. Roma M. Freeman, Physical Educadoo ic Science Teacher, Barnstable Junior 

Hig^ School 
Joseph Gomes, Osterville 

Arthur C. Goode, Vice President, Retail Board of Trade. Hyannis 

Jack Graiver, Falmouth 

Harold L. Hayes, Jr., Attorney at Law 

John T. Hough, Falmouth Publishing Companv 

Mrs. John T. Hough, Falmouth 

Joseph Indio, Editor and Publisher, "Nantucket Tovm Crier" 
Charies W. Jacoby, President, Cape Cod Board of Realtors 
Allen F. Jones, Ccmtractor, Barnstable 

James H. Kennedy, Employment Office Manager, Mass. Di\isi<Mi of Employment 

Security, Plymouth 
John C. Linehan, Principal, Barnstable Junior Hig^ School 
Thomas F. McReon, Executive Secretary, Hyannis Board of Trade 
Harry S. Merson. Superintendent of Schools, Falmouth 
Mrs. Harrv S. Merson, Falmouth 



40 



Ben Morton. Secretary, Chamber of Commerce, Martha's Vineyard 

Norman Nunes, Supervisor, Hood Milk Company 

Mrs. Lillian Olson, Treasurer, Hyannis Cooperative Bank 

John Pena, Contractor, Member State Board of Agriculture, West Falmouth 

Mrs. John Pena, Special Policewoman, Falmouth Police Department 

Howard Penn. Former President, Cape Cod Jaycees 

Rabbi Jerome Pine, Cape Cod Synagogue, Hyannis 

Thomas Roderick, Teen-Age Group coordinator, Hyannis 

John Rosario, Member Junior Chamber of Commerce 

Rev. Carl Fearing Schultz, D.D., The Federated Church of Hyannis 

Miss Mary G. Shea, "Dennis' Yarmouth Register," Yarmouthport 

Frank Simmons, Sr., Guest House owner, Falmouth 

Warren Sperl, Assistant Treasurer, Cape and Vineyard Electric Company 

Richard F. Tobin, Public Relations 

Mrs. Lewis Paul Todd, Truro 

Mrs. Helen M. Webster, Realtor, West Yarmouth 

Harold H. Williams, Chairman, State Advisory Committee on Service to Youth 
Ruth E. Williams, Advisory Council, Women's Division, State Department of 
Commerce 

Mrs. Minna Witt, Proprietor, Admiral Hotel, Hyannis 

New Bedford 

Fred W. Steele, Chairman, Legislative Agent and Counsel for Textile Mills of 
Mass. 

Mrs. Valentina N. Almeida, Principal Clerk, City Auditor's Office 
Joseph Baldwin, Employment Manager, Division of Employment Security, New 
Bedford 

Samuel Barnet, Special Justice, Third District Court of Bristol County 
Henry A. Bartkiewicz, Attorney at Law, Secretary, Polish Relief Committee of 
New Bedford 

James M. Buckley, Director of Adult Education, New Bedford Public Schools 
John R. Campbell, Manager, New England Telephone & Telegraph Company 
George E. Carignan, International Representative, Textile Workers' Union of 

America, AFL-CIO 
Joaquim A. Custodio, Lancashire Corporation, New Bedford 

Duncan A. Dottin, Social Worker, Division of Child Guardianship, New Bedford 
Mrs. William S. Holmes, Jr., Director and Past President, Council of Women's 

Organizations of Greater New Bedford 
Harold Hurwitz, Attorney at Law 

Hyman Krivoff, President and Treasurer, Dartmouth Finishing Corporation, New 
Bedford 

Miss Ruth B. McFadden, Former Superintendent of Schools, New Bedford 
Rev. Paul L. Moore, Minister, 1st Presbyterian Church, New Bedford 
Miss Kathleen A. Morrissey, Social Worker, Division of Child Guardianship 
Franklyn M. Nipper, New Bedford Defense Products 

Joao R. Rocha, Newspaper Publisher and Editor, "Portuguese Daily News" 
Marchall Sawyer, Teacher, Wareham High School 
Fermino N. Spencer 

Mrs. Dorothy B. Stahre, Principal, New Bedford Public Schools 
Joseph A. Sylvia, Jr., Register of Deeds, New Bedford 
The Hon. August C. Taveira 

Alfred R. Thackeray, New Bedford Board of Commerce 
Mrs. Xenophon Thomas, New Bedford 

Philip F. Tripp, Executive Director, New Bedford Nursing Authority 
Joseph S. Vera, Attorney 

William Joseph Winsper, III, Assistant Director of Guidance and Placement 

New Bedford High School 
Mrs. William Wood, Secretary of New Bedford Board of Real Estate 
Donald Zeman, Attorney at Law 



41 



Mrs. Anthony Zielinski, Women's Republican Club of New Bedford Executive 
Board 

Rabbi Bernard H. Ziskind, Tifereth Israel Synagogue 

North Shore 

John M, Lilly, Chairman, General Secretary, Lynn YMCA 
Alfred A. Albert, Real Estate Broker 

Anthony Athanas, President, Hawthorne Restaurants, Lynn-Swampscott 
Samuel P. Backman, Realtor, Chairman Industrial Commission of Lynn 
Mrs. Mary Finn Berlyn, Supervisor, Adult Civic Education, Lynn Public Schools 
Louis L. Brin, Editorial Staff, "The Jewish Advocate" 
*S. Matthew Carrington, Sr. 
C. Robert Coe, General Electric Company 
Attorney Charles Cronis, 14 Central Avenue, Lynn 

Thomas J. Curtin, Deputy Commissioner of Education, Massachusetts Department 

of Education 
Rev. Earl Eldridge, Lynn Council of Churches 
Mrs. Solomon M. Feldman, Jewish Community Federation 
Mrs. Conover Fitch, Jr., 190 Willow Street, Nahant, Mass. 
Peter Gamage, Publisher, "Lynn Item" 
Abraham Glovsky, Senior Partner, Glovsky & Glovsky 
Francis L. Keane, School Adjustment Counselor, Lynn Public Schools 
Mrs. Prescott Ketell, 11 Vernon Street, Nahant, Mass. 
Henry Kozlowski, Treasurer, Jackson & Phillips, Inc. 
Robert G. Livingston, Manager, Nissen Baking Corporation 
Herbert D. Marsh, President, Security Trust Company, Lynn 
Lawrence G. McGinn, Superintendent of Schools, Lynn School Department 
Mrs. Marcia L. Memmott, Director, Women's Division, Mass. Department of 

Commerce 

Joseph M. Moseson, Executive, Jewish Community Council 
Mrs. William H. Nesbit, Librarian, "Lynn Item" 

Theodore Regnante, Chairman, Board of Trustees of Lynn Public Library 

Armand J. St. Laurent, Funeral Director 

Rabbi Steven S. Schwartzchild, Temple Beth El, Lynn 

Rt. Rev. Cornelius T. H. Sherlock, Pastor, St. Mary's Parish, Lynn 

Malcolm Stone, Factory Manager, Boston Machine Works 

John W. Tisdell, Manager, New England Telephone & Telegraph Company 
Dr. William D. Washington, Lynn 

^\'illiam A. Welsh, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Mass. Association of School 
Superintendents 

Springfield 

Roger L. Putnam, Chairman, Chairman of the Board, Package Machinery Company 
Mrs. Richard B. Anderson, Public Affairs Committee, Community Council of 

Greater Springfield 
Oscar Bright, CORE 

Archie Burack, Treasurer, Industrial Buildings Corporation, Chicopee 
Rev. Charles E. Cobb, St. John's Congregational Church 

John Douglas Cummings, Chairman, Minority Housing Committee, Springfield 
Miss Clarace E. Gait, Head Psychiatric Social Worker, Child Guidance Clinic of 
Springfield 

Chester N. Gibbs, Urban League of Springfield 

Mrs. Richard J. Griffin, Jr., President of Civic Association Presidents 
Miss Alice L. Halligan, Executive Secretary, Springfield Adult Education Council 
Jacke C. Harris, Director, Community Tensions Center, Springfield College 
Jewell Hodges, Real Estate Broker 

Miss Olive K. Horrigan, Retired Director of Adult Education, Springfield School 

Department 
Raymond T. King, Attorney at Law 
Robert G. Little 



42 



Bernard H. McMahon, President, Springfield Five Cents Sa\-ings Bank 

Rev. Vincent M. O'Connor, Catholic Social Service Bureau 

Mrs. Roger L. Putnam, President of Catholic Scholarship for Negroes, Inc. 

Frederick B. Robinson, Director, Museum of Fine Arts, Springfield 

James J. Shea, President, Milton Bradley Company 

Charles ViVenzio. Financial Secretary, Local No. 202, AFL-CIO 

Mrs. Malcolm C. ^Vebber 

•Rev. D. Edward Wells, Pastor, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Springfield 

Worcester 

Andrew B. Holmstrom, Chairman, Consultant, Norton Company 
Rev. Michael Paul Befaro, Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester 
.Mrs. Marv L. Boyd, NAACP Executive Board 

Lyscora A. Bruce', Retired Executive Secretary, Community Chest and Council 

of Greater ^Vorcester 
Rev. Hubert C. Callaghan. S. J., Director, Institute of Industrial Relations, College 

of the Holy Cross 
Miss Elizabeth Campbell, Executive Director, YWCA 

Daniel J. Casale, District Superintendent, Mass. Division of Emplo^-ment Security 
Rev. Toussaint L. Davis, Baptist Church 

Donald S. Donnelly, Chief Supervisor, Mass. Division of Employment Security 
Clayton T. Drown, Accounting Supervisor, Norton Company 
Mrs. Linwood M. Brakine, Member "^Vorcester Area Committee on Aging 
Mrs. Daniel Farber 

The Hon. Joseph Goldberg, Central District Court, Worcester 
Rev. L. M. Hamby 

Frank E. Hayes, Executive Secretar.-, Board of U. S. Civil Service Examiners, 

U. S. Post Office, "Worcester 
Dr. Ralph L. Holland, Executive Secretan-, Greater "Worcester Area Council of 

Churches 

John B. Horvarth, Postmaster, "VVorcester 

Dr. Howard B. JefEerson, President, Clark University, "Worcester 
Rabbi Joseph Klein, Temple Emanuel, "Worcester 
John S. Laws, Principal, Dix Street School, "Worcester 

Miss Anna Mays, Life member of NAACP, New England Regional Conference 
Philip M. Morgan, President, Morgan Construction Company 
Mrs. Stanley "W. Norwood, The Bancroft School 

Walter A. Olson, Executive Director, Family Service Organization of "Worcester 
Matthew P. O'Regan, President, "Worcester Real Estate Board 
Harn. AV. Oswell 

Edson D. Phelps, Vice President, State Mutual Life Assurance Company of 

America 
Mrs. Richard B. Roberts 

Mrs. Dorothy L. Salter, President, Salter Secretarial School 

Luther C. Small, Executive Director, "Worcester Housing Authority 

Mrs. George E. Spence 

Roy H. Stevens, Jr., Director, United Steel workers' of America, AFL-CIO 

L. I. St. Martin, Executive Vice President, Master Home Builders Association of 

^Vorcester County 
Rev. John H. Stringfield, A. M. E. Zion Church 
David Todd, Civil Liberties Union 
Rev. Gordon M. Torgerson 
Dr. Joseph Weinreb, Youth Guidance Center 



•Deceased 



Public Document 



No. 163 



all? Qlmtmummpaltli at iHassarljusptta 

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 

ANNUAL REPORT 

of the 

Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination 

January 1, 1965 to December 31, 1965 




Malcolm C. Webber, Chairman 
Ruth M. Batson, Commissioner 
I Ben G. Shapiro, Commissioner 

John F. Albano, Commissioner 
J / , y7 Walter H. Nolan, Executive Secretary 



41 Tremont Street 1570 Main Street 

^ Boston, Massachusetts Springfield, Massachusetts 



PUBIilCATION Oy THIS DOCUMEXT APPRONID BT ALFRED C. HOIiLAND, STATB PXTBCHASING AGKNT 

6M-6-66-943321 Estimated Cost Per Copy: $.18 



Public Document 



No. 163 



EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 

ANNUAL REPORT 

of the 

Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination . 

January 1, 1965 to December 31, 1965 



Malcolm C. Webber, Chairman 
Ruth M. Batson, Commissioner 
Ben G. Shapiro, Commissioner 
John F. Albano, Commissioner 
Walter H. Nolan, Executive Secretary 



41 Tremont Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



1570 Mai>i Street 
Springfield, Massachusetts 




His Excellency John A. Volpe, GovernoiC^ 
Honorable Members, General Court of Massachusetts 



Sirs: 



On behalf of the entire Commission, it is my pleasure to submit to vou and the mem- 
bers of the General Court the twentieth Annual Report covering the period from Janu- 
ary 1. 1965 through December 31, 1965. 

The Commission is gratified to note extensive gains in the administration of the 
provisions of the law. Significant has been the improved image and reputation of the 
Commission and the favorable and interested attitudes towards the Fair Practice Laws 
and in conditions of employment. We have seen some encouraging indications of im- 
proved conditions in housing accommodations. The proportionately small number of 
public accommodations complaints proves that discrimination in this area has dimin- 
ished appreciably. There were no complaints of discrimination in admission to an 
educational institution for the reporting year. The inclusion of sex in the fair em- 
ployment practice law added some thirty-nine complaints to the case load over the 
five month period of time that it was effective from August 2, to the end of the year. 
With the Commission handling 639 matters there was an increase in case load of 20.5% 
over the previous year. 

The Commission feels that there has been healthy progress made in human and in- 
terracial relations. The participation and support offered the Commission bv indi- 
viduals and groups throughout the Commonwealth in attempting to eliminate housing 
discrimination has been most gratifying. 

Many employers have cooperated with the Commission in its aflfirmative program 
to eliminate discrimination in employment and these joint efforts have been an impor- 
tant part of the Commission's activity. 

Despite the progress made, this Commission feels we are moving into a more complex 
period where the problems caused by past generations must be faced and that this 
period will require imagination and skills far beyond that of the immediate past. 

I wish to thank all the members of the MCAD staff for their dedication to this most 
important work in a time of great crisis. 

With every good ^vish, I remain. 



Sincerely yours, 




>>1 ^( prx^ 



A 

CONTENTS 

Page 

POLICY STATEMENT 4 

INTRODUCTION 4 

SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTIVITIES 4 

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS 6 

COMPLIANCE THROUGH COMPLAINTS 6 

COMPLAINT HISTORIES 6 

PUBLIC HEARINGS 10 

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 21 

LEGISLATION 22 

ENACTED 22 

PROPOSED . 23 

RESEARCH DIVISION 23 

THE RESEARCH PROGRAM 24 

A STUDY OF DISCRIMINATORY PATTERNS IN INDUSTRY . . 25 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 25 

PUBLIC HOUSING SURVEY STATISTICS 31 

SUMMARY OF OLDER WORKER STUDY 37 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CONFERENCE .... 41 

COMMUNITY RELATIONS DIVISION 44 

COUNCIL ACTIVITIES 44 

LIST OF COUNCILS 45 



4 



POLICY STATEMENT 

Aggressive affirmative action, as well as corrective action is a necessary ingredient in 
OUT rapidly changing times. 

This Commission's atttitude toward the question of affirmative action to achieve racial 
equality beyond the conciliation of complaints and redress of individuals is often 
questioned. We believe that the following statement will clarify our position. 

We believe that it is possible to direct constructive social change through the demo- 
cratic process and the conflict and tension inherent in social change can be construc- 
tively utilized. Positive, aflTirmative actions by the leadership of business, labor, public 
education, social agencies — all the institutions of our communities and government are 
nccessar) to achieve this constructive social change. 

We will attempt to improve the handling of individual complaints, intensify our 
own efforts in affirmative action and give leadership encouragement and expert assist- 
ance to any such efforts. 

INTRODUCTION 

The year 1965 has been both one of increased activity and one of warning. The 
Commission feels pride and satisfaction in the continuing increase in the number of 
citizens of the Commonwealth who are availing themselves of their rights through this 
Commission. It believes the statistics and charts it has included in this annual report 
will dearly show the rapid increase in its case load and also provide a basis for judg- 
ment of the efficiency of its handling of this increased activity. 

The Commission has had added to its law, effective August 2nd, 1965, the outlawing 
of discrimination in employment due to sex. This added responsibility has resulted in 
39 cases during the last 5 months of 1965. It is already obvious, the handling of cases 
in this area will require long investigations into such things as insurance rights, union 
contracts, seniority policies, etc. It is also obvious that a substantial number of such 
cases must be expected to be filed. 

Since 1963, when the Springfield office was opened, the Commission has had no in- 
crease in budget which would increase its investigative staff or its office personnel. Yet 
during the same period its case load has increased from 359 in 1963 to 639 in 1965. 

During the same period the questions, with which the Commission deals, have be- 
come much more complex. It is no longer fashionable to discriminate and therefore 
those who do violate the law, do it in a sophisticated manner indeed at times in such 
a way that they can delude themselves. This causes longer investigations, more difficult 
decisions, and more legal actions. 

The above problem along with the projected increase in sex discrimination cases 
makes obvious that for the year 1966 the Commission will be severely handicapped by 
lack of funds. It believes it needs, to properly service the state, the additional facilities 
which it has requested. Without the additional personnel and budget it has requested 
for the existing offices, it knows it will find a slowdown of its case handling, a lack 
of funds to finance its legal actions and a diminishing of affirmative action programs. 

The Commission has great hopes that through its supplementary budget for the re- 
mainder of this fiscal year (until June 30th) and its new budget which will start on 
July 1st, 1966 it will be given the funds necessary to continue its efforts to move for- 
ward in the battle for equal rights for all. 

SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTIVITIES 

The twentieth Annual Report of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimina- 
tion includes the period from 1 January 1965 to 31 December 1965. 

There were 639 matters filed with the Commission during the reporting year. These 
matters involved alleged acts of unlawful discrimination based on race, color, religious 
creed, national origin, sex, age and ancestry in employment and discrimination based 
on race, creed, color, national origin or national ancestry in housing, places of public 
accommodations and admissions to educational institutions. 



5 



A study of the emplovraent problems of the older worker was made by a staff mera- 
besr. A summar\- of his findings appear in another section of this report. 

A study of the initial employment experiences of white and non-white recent voca- 
tional school graduates was undertaken with the co-sponsorship of the Social Relations 
Department of Johns Hopkins University and financed by a Social Security Administra- 
tion grant. The study is concerned with the incidence of emplo\-ment. wage rates 
achieved, and industries entered the first year following graduation. 

An awareness and an attitudinal study relating to the anli-discrimination laws and 
the Commission was begun. 212 civil rights leaders, including top and middle leader- 
ship in 18 organizations, were contaaed and the results of the information obtained 
from them is presentlv being analyzed. 

An impressionistic view of business attitudes towards equal emplovment opportunity 
programs was obtained as the result of in-depth interviews of top management per- 
sonnel in a middle-size city of an economically depressed area of Massachusetts. 

In November 1965 the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination completed 
arrangements with "Wavne State University and the Equal Employment OppK)rtunity 
Commission to accept a grant of SI 1.000 to make a pilot study of emplo\Tnent patterns 
in the transfwrtation industry. 

The Commission and the firm of Snelling and Snelling. Personnel Consultants, co- 
sponsored an Equal Emplovment Opportimitv Conference. The Conference was held 
at the Statler Hilton Hotel in Boston. 

Present at the Conference were representatives of 644 employers and employment 
agencies as well as representatives from 47 federal, state, and local government agencies. 

A survey of the tenant selection policies of 27 Public Housing Authorities was again 
conducted by the staff to determine equal opportunities for housing as well as equal 
treatment in housing regardless of race, color, creed or religion. 

The survey includes the number and names of the completed housing developments 
within the jurisdiction and management of each Housing Authority and the number 
of units to be built during the ensuing year. 

All forms and records made out by and for applicants for public housing were ex- 
amined and a census of the non-white tenancv in each development was obtained. The 
census figures appear in another section of the Annual Rep>ort. 

The Commission members and staff held 92 conferences and addressed 115 business, 
civic, educational and social organizations. 

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination filed a brief on de facto 
school segregation as an amicus curiae with the United States Court of Appeals for the 
First Circuit District in the case of appeal by the defendant School Committee of 
Sprngfield versus Abraham Barksdale, Jr. et al. 

The Division of Civil Senice under the direction of Mr. ^V. Henry Finnegan has 
been extremely effective in aiding this Commission in its administration and enforce- 
ment of the sex amendment which became effective 2 August 1965. 

The Division of Civil Service alerted all appointing authorities throughout the Com- 
monwealth of the provisions of the amendment and the necessity of obtaining an 
exemption from the Commission before personnel requisitions, specifying sex, could be 
recognized. 

Detenninations that the sex of an individual was a bona fide occupational qualifica- 
tion in the filling of jobs under the jurisdiction of the Division of Civil Service were 
made for 498 positions. 

Five Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Orders were issued by the Commis- 
sion during 1965. 

The Commission conducted 7 Public Hearings and petitioned the Massachusetts 
Suf>erior Court for injunctive relief in 26 cases. 

The Commission members and staff participated in 8 radio and 3 television programs. 

1382 persons visited tlie Boston and Springfield ofl5ces of the Commission to make 
inquiries into their rights, privileges and responsibilities under the laws administered 
by the Commission. 



6 



SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS 

The Commission regards as a most important function education of all segments of 
society. Limited budget has been a perennial impediment to efforts to provide the 
types of materials, manner of distribution and techniques for providing a comprehen- 
sive, concrete educational program designed to provide the information and orientation 
which will apprise the citizenry of the Commonwealth of the civil rights laws enacted 
to protect its rights and interests. 

Within the operational framework available and employing that material and those 
sources at its disposal the Commission has conducted an educational program structured 
lo a large degree upon the speaking engagements of its staff. During the past year 115 
speaking engagements were fulfilled by the Commission. The entire Commonwealth 
was traversed in the performing of these engagements. The staff has been cast in 
every role from main speaker, consultant, panelist, moderator and master of ceremonies 
to radio broadcaster and telecaster. A myriad of subject matter has been presented to 
include specialized material geared for specific groups interested in and involving 
employment, housing and other portions of the civil rights laws. This information 
has been conveyed at conferences restricted to individualistic segments of industry, viz: 
retail food stores, taxicab industry, hotel industry, radio broadcasting industry, public 
utilities, employers working under government contract to the state, the hauling 
industry (refuse carriers), police departments, truck drivers, real estate groups, fair 
housing groups and state agencies as well as to conferences of general attendance. At 
many of these conferences the law was defined and the procedures and practices of the 
Commission in administering the law w^ere explained. At other conferences the subject 
matter was more broad and general dealing with the w'hole spectrum of civil rights. 
According to the response and interest manifested this phase of the educational pro- 
gram has produced marked success. The Commission is exerting all efforts to augment 
this program with more composite and far reaching objectives. 

COMPLIANCE THROUGH COMPLAINTS 

Compliance has been accentuated by increasingly broadening forms to include af- 
firmative action now, which uses results as a criteria for accomplishment. Despite 
compliance through affirmative and other types of action the basic role in producing 
compliance within the Commonwealth has always been and continues to be that even- 
tuating from complaints filed either by the individual or the Commission. The process- 
ing of individual complaints continues to be the principal function of the Commission 
and the one requiring the preponderant proportion of the staff's time and efforts. 

The following are summaries of complaint histories which graphically indicate the 
effectiveness of the individual complaint. These histories include three on employment 
and one on housing. The three employment matters cover sex (a new area covered 
by law), age and color. 

It is significant to point out the importance of the individual complaint. Frequently 
associates through mutual interests aw'ait and carefully examine the disposition made 
by the Commission in order to determine their own future policy. Therefore the han- 
dling of each individual complaint may well, and often does, influence the j>olicies 
and practices of a large area. 

The complaints reported hereafter are categorized under the classifications of em- 
ployment and housing. They are: 

Complaint Histories 

Employment 

The powers of the Commission were broadened this year with the enactment of the 
sex amendment to the Fair Employment Practice Law with August 2, 1965 the effective 
date. 

Almost immediately as of the effective date complaints were filed with the MCAD 
charging discrimination because of sex. The following is an account of the first sex 
complaint in the country in which a decision was rendered. 

This matter was referred originally to the Massachusetts Commission Against Dis- 



7 



crimination by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as a result of which 
the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination initiated a complaint. 

On October 4, 1965 the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination filed a 
complaint against a subsidiary of one of the largest manufacturers in the United States 
charging that the subsidiary discriminated against 8 women employees by discharging 
them from employment because of their sex in violation of the law. 

This respondent, engaged in 100 percent government contract work, employs approx- 
imately 700. The respondent alleged that in June it decided to experiment on a new 
type job, bench inspector. ^Vomen were assigned t±iis work because it was light. The 
men were assigned to heavier work. After union negotiations the starting wage was 
established at SI. 89 per hour. All the women were placed upon a 45 day probationary 
period. Men employed as line inspectors are placed upon a 60 day probationary pe- 
riod. The normal policy of the respondent is to give 10 cent per hour step increases 
until a $2.24 maximum is reached. The basic hiring rate is §1.84 per hour. 

The resfK)ndent claimed that bench inspector differed from line inspector in that the 
latter performed heavier work and did their own lifting. The respondent decided that 
line insf>ector work was too heavy for women. Further conditioning its decision not 
to use women as line inspectors was the fact that the respondent would have to procure 
special benches, tools, safety glasses, safety shoes, rest room facilities and a matron. 
Considering all the factors even at $1.89 per hour the job was economically unsound. 
Since the experiment was found to be economically unsound, it was discontinued. Sex 
was not a consideration. 

The res{>ondent is recognized as a heavy industry plant. 

None of the female workers were union members. They had not completed the 60 
day probationary period a condition precedent to eligibility for membership. The 
union took the position that the bench inspector classification never existed. There 
were 20-30 male inspectors doing the same job as the females. The males were receiving 
$2.24 per hour. 

Ele\en women, all discharged bench inspectors, filed complaints with the MCAD. 
They all claimed they performed the same work as the men, doing their own lifting, 
placing and removing work. The women alleged they were qualified to perform line 
inspector work and willing to accept that work now performed by the men. 

The respondent claimed that the men were more mobile and screened finished parts, 
which made them preferrable to the women. 

Investigation showed that the heaviest total weight lifted at the time in question was 
25 pounds. 

The MCAD found probable cause. As a result thereof the following terms of con- 
ciliation were agreed upon: 

1. The women will be reinstated in the positions from which they were discharged; 

2. The women will be reinstated at the rate of $1.94 per hour with the maximum 
rite for the position to be determined by agreement between the union and respondent; 

3. The women will receive retroactive pay from 10-4-65 to date minus any wages or 
unemployment compensation received. (Complaint No. I-5-S) 

On February 24, 1965 a Negro filed a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination in 
emplovment because of color. 

The complainant applied for a job as driver with an employer. He completed an em- 
ployment application form and was given an aptitude test. The personnel manager 
questioned the complainant with reference to his driving record and then told him he 
was one point below what the company expected on the aptitude test. The personnel 
manager explained that the company was closing to take investory, it would be reopen- 
ing in two weeks. The complainant would be called if there was an opening. 

The complainant told a white classmate of his about the incident. The classmate 
told the compainant that there were no Negroes employed by the company. 
The complainant charged the company with not hiring him because of his color. 

The respondent company is engaged in the trucking and delivery business. It em- 
ploys 600-700 employees. At the time of the filing of the complaint it employed no 



8 



Negroes. 

Facts were disclosed during the investigation that the company has no stocktaking 
inventor)'. The Company would not hire the complainant because in 1961 he sustained 
a back injury from which he collected workmen's compensation. 

The MCAD found probable cause in the complaint. 
Terms of conciliation agreed upon were as follows: 

1. The company will employ Negroes; 

2. The company will advertise that it is an equal employment opportunity company; 

3. The company will make a sincere effort to secure qualified Negro applicants 
throughout New England employing the services of the Urban League; 

4. The company will use the services of the Urban League, civil rights organizations, 
Negro churches and clergymen throughout the Northeast for the purpose of obtaining 
Negro applicants; 

5. The company will make the necessary plans and include therein a program for 
upgrading Negroes. 

Three Negroes were hired within a short period of time. 

The company cooperated in everyway with the MCAD once it was contacted by the 
MCAD field representative. (SII-3-C) 

A man filed a complaint with the MCAD on April 8, 1965 alleging unlawful dis- 
crimination in employment in that he was discharged because of his age. 

The complainant had worked for another company for approximately 35 years dur- 
ing the last four years of which he worked part itime for the respondent. On many 
occasions a supervisor of the respondent urged the complainant to accept his retirement 
from the other company and become a full time employee with the respondent. The 
complainant did this in 1959. 

For the next six years the complainant worked predominantly nights as porter for 
the resfK)ndent. He was considered a good worker. He was not absent or sick until 
March 2, 1965 at which time he became ill with a virus infection. This caused him to 
be absent about three weeks. The complainant's physician advised that the complain- 
ant could return to work, March 22, 1965 and perform light duties. The company 
physician examined the complainant, March 24, 1965. Later the personnel department 
informed the complainant the company physician had found him physically fit for 
work. The complainant was told by the personnel department to take another week 
off. 

On March 29, 1965 the manager at the store where the complainant had been em- 
ployed phoned and told the complainant's wife to instruct the complainant to return 
to work the following evening but to see the personnel director first. The wife received 
no answer when she sought the reason why the complainant should see the personnel 
director. When she sought the information from the personnel director, he informed 
her the complainant should retire (the complainant was sixty-three), he was too old 
and would only lose about twenty percent of his pension. The wife pointed out there 
was no need for the complainant to retire, he considered himself too young and he was 
physically fit to work. The wife told the personnel director the complainant was going 
to visit the labor board. Whereupon the personnel director told her to do nothing 
and for both her and the complainant to confer with him the following morning. 

The complainant and his wife met with the personnel director the next morning. He 
called the store manager and informed him the complainant wanted to return to work. 
The store manager said the complainant was too old and should retire. 

The personnel director then said to make it easier for the complainant the respon- 
dent would pay the complainant the remainder of the week as sick leave, plus two 
weeks vacation due plus two weeks termination pay. This would take the complainant 
through the end of April and the complainant should be able to find a job or retire. 
The personnel director said the company was not running a charitable business and 
"we don't have old men working for us." 



9 



The respondent operates a chain of supermarkets. It employs a total of two thou- 
sand eight hundred and fifty individuals. The average age is 30-35. There are an 
estimated two hundred employees over forty-five. 

The personnel director denied that age had anything to do with the complainant's 
discharge. He agreed that the complainant was dependable, never absent or tardy and 
said the complainant's performance of his woork was satisfactory until recently. But for 
about a year the store manager had been complaining of the calibre of performance of 
the complainant's work. The complainant's discharge was imminent and had been de- 
layed by his illness. 

The personnel director stated that the compainant was warned frequently since 
August 1964 that his work was unsatisfactory. He denied making statements concern- 
ing the age of the complainant, but admitted explaining termination pay and profit 
sharing with the complainant. 

The store manager denied he made any reference to the age of the complainant and 
pointed out he had two part-time employees; one over sixty; the other seventy-four. 

The store manager claimed that the work load of the complainant was reduced. 
Still the complainant did poor work and did not complete his assigned work even 
though he was given a pay raise. The complainant charged that his duties were in- 
creased and that for the most part he was doing the work of two men, but that the 
work force had been decreased. The complainant's wife said she received phone calls 
nearly daily from the store manager inquiring when the complainant would return to 
work because he was needed. 

At the conclusion of an informal conference held at the MCAD office the company 
agreed to reinstate the complainant. The company stated that it realized it may have 
been at fault in that something may have been said inadevertently to the complainant 
to cause him to feel he was discriminated against. 

The complainant was reinstated and transferred to another store. (Complaint No. 
AXV-75-A) 

Housing 

The complainant filed a complaint with the MCAD, March 16, 1965. The complain- 
ant alleged that about three weeks prior to filing the complaint she saw an advertise- 
ment in the newspaper, "2 bedroom apartment, $105 per month, heated." She called 
the real estate company named in the advertisement and talked with a broker w^ho in- 
formed her that children are acceptable. She made an appointment to see the apart- 
ment. At the appointed time she arrived at the broker's office. He made a phone call 
and upon receiving no answer, said no one was at home. He took the complainant to 
see the outside of the building. The complainant sought to arrange an apfK>intment 
for the following day. The broker suggested that she call him. Meanwhile he told her 
the owner was planning to sell the house and she, the owner, wanted the apartment 
for her daughter. 

The following day the complainant phoned and was told the broker was not in. Her 
request, that he return her call, was not honored. 

The complainant's husband saw another apartment advertised by the real estate com- 
pany, March 7, 1965. When he made inquiry by phone with regard to the apartment, 
he was told the apartment was available. The husband did not identify himself. The 
complainant and her husband went to the office and talked with the same broker. The 
broker showed them the exterior of the building and said he was sorry but he could 
not show the interior on Sunday. He added he would make an appointment for the 
following day at 2:00 P.M., but he was going into the National Guard at 11:30 A.M. 

The following day, March 8, 1965, the complainant and her- husband arrived at the 
real estate company office at 11:15 A.M. They were told the broker w^as out and would 
not be back until 3:00 P.M. 

The complainant and her husband returned about 3:15 P.M. The broker had not 
returned. The man they had seen in the office that morning called the owner and re- 
ported that the owner said children were not acceptable. The complainant has two 
children. 



10 



The man was asked if the real estate company had any listings in the complainant', 
price range that accepted children. She and her husband were told there were no sue 
listings. 

Two davs later the complainant talked with the same office man and asked about an 
advertised two bedroom apartment, heated, for S120.CK) per month. ^Vhen the com- 
plainant mentioned children, she was informed that the company had plenty of listings 
but none that would accept children. 

The complainant charged the real estate company and its agents and employees with 
discrimination in denying the rental of an apartment to the complainant because of 
her color in violation of the law. 

On March 9, 1965 a testor contacted the same office man as had the complainant. 
She requested a two bedroom apartment with 4-5 rooms, heated, at the rent of $120.00 
per month. The testor also stated that she had two children. The office man quoted 
two heated apartments: one at S120.00 and the other at S158.00 per month. Later the 
same dav both apartments were shown the testor by the informant. The following day 
another agent told the testor that both apartments were still available but she should 
"close the deal" quickly because of the great demand for apartments. 

During the course of the investigation the agent first contacted by the complainant 
denied that he had discriminated. He said the owner of the first house discussed was 
a new one. She was holding the vacant apartment for a daughter, who was about to 
get married. He explained that because of the Blue Law houses may not be shown 
on Sunday. He added that he did have listings but that the owners did not usuallv 
indicate whether they accepted children. This was only learned, when efforts were 
made to show the apartments. 

At the conclusion of the investigation and report the investigating commissioner 
found probable cause. The terms of conciliation were as follows: Statement from presi- 
dent of companv in writing that the office man Avas employed only for office work and 
to answer the phone, but not to show apartments; 

A second statement by the president of the company's policy not to discriminate and 
that all agents and employees have been fully instructed of the companv policv and 
that a mandate of the company is equal treatment to all clients; 

Have the agent contacted originally bv the complainant show the complainant and 
her husband all apartments listed in a price range of interest to them; and 

Post the Fair Housing Posters in all offices. 

At the conclusion of the complaint the complainant wrote the following letter: 

^ ^ . . April 12, 1965 

Dear Commissioner: 

I want to say thank you from my husband and me. 

I was quite pleased the way vou took care of our case. 

I was proud to be there and hope my being there will help others. 

^Ir. called me last Fridav and made an appointment with me for tonight 

at 7:00 P.M. 

Mv husband and I kept the appointment and were shown a lovelv apartment at 

Ck)mmonwealth Avenue for SI 10.00, 4 rooms with heat. 

^Ir. 's attitude was changed and he tried verv hard. We asked the regu- 
lar questions and told him we would contact him later. 
Thank you again, for doing a great job. 



Respectfully, 

Mrs. 



(PrHVII-21-C) 



PUBLIC HEARINGS 



There were seven public hearings held during 1965. In five of these orders were 
issued by the Commission prior to the close of the vear. 

Of the five in which orders were issued two involved employment and three housing. 
In one emplovment hearing the Commission found no discrimination was practiced 



11 



against the complainant. In the four other hearings cease and desist orders were issued. 
The respondent was ordered to give employment to the complainant and the three 
housing resjx)ndents were ordered to rent the accommodations to the complainant. 

The complaints, from which the hearings arose, were initiated as follows: one — 
Suffolk County; two — Hampden County; one — Middlesex County and one — Plymouth 
Countv. Four of the respondents have petitioned the court for judicial review. Tlic 
Commission orders follow. 

The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of the Commission, which 
is reproduced below, is before the Courts for enforcement in all l)ut the Hargrove \. 
O'Brien matter. 

COMMONWEALTH OF M.\SSACHUSETTS 
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST 
on relation of 
DISCRIMINATION 
CLARENCE STRONG. Complainant 
23 Montrose Street, Roxbury, Massachusetts Executive Department Fintlings 



of Fact, Conclusion of Law 
Order 

xix-:u-c 



vs. 

RICHARD JOYCE SMITH, 
AVILLIAM J. KIRK, and 
HARRY \V. DORIGAN 
Trustees of the Property 
of the New York, New Haven and Hartford 
Railroad Company Debtor in Reorganization, 
R('sj)ondeuts 

Final Decree 

This cause came on for hearing before Chairman Malcolm C. \Vcblun and Commis- 
sioners Ben G. Shapiro and John F. Albano, who, upon consideration of all the evi- 
dence, set forth their findings, conclusion and order as follows: 

Fi)idings of Fact 

1. Ciomplainant, on April 6, 1964, was an employee of the New York, New Haven 
and Hartford Railroad Company (the Railroad). 

2. Complainant at the said time was assigned to the dining car department of the 
Railroad as a waiter. 

3. On April 6, 1964, while in a railroad car, complainant had a verbal altercation 
with a superior employee of the Railroad as a result of which said superior employee 
dismissed the complainant from work. 

4. On April 15, 1964 a hearing was held on charges against the complainant for 
refusal to work, insubordination, and threatening and swearing at a superior employee. 
This hearing was held by other superior employees of the Railroad. On April 24, 1964 
plaintiff was notified by VV. A. Duprey, manager of the dining and parlor cars, that 
complainant had lieen foimd guilty of the refusal to work, insubordination, and threat- 
ening and swearing of which he had been charged. In the same notice, complainant 
was discharged from employment by the Railroad. 

5. The decision of Duprey was appealed to a higher officer of the Railroad, who, with 
one modification, confirmed the findings and affirmed the dismissal. 

6. Of the forty-five persons on the so-called waiters' roster at the time of com- 
plainant's altercation, forty-four were Negro. Complainant is a Negro. 

7. The fact that the complainant is Negro was not a factor in any of the actions set 
forth above, of the Railroad or any of its employees in its dealings with the com- 
plainant. 

Conclusion of Law 
1 he above facts do not disclose any violation of c. 151 by the respondent. 

ORDER 

The complaint is dismissed. 

Comment: We wish to make it clear that we express no view of whether the labor 
dispute involved in this matter was properly or improperly handled, according to cor- 



12 



reel or iiKorreci procedures, whether it was decided correcth or incorrectlv on the 
merits (except to the extent of any claim of discrimination in violation of c. 151B) and 
whether the punishment was appropriate or unduly harsh. ^Ve con&ne ourselves, as 
we must, simplv to the issue of the alleged violation under c. 151 B. ^Ve think it im- 
portant to note that the high preponderance of Negroes in this department is greatly 
disproportionate to the proportion of Negroes in the available labor market. Simul- 
taneously herewith, we are requesting the full Commission to order an investigation 
to determine whether this fact is a mere coincidence or whether it is the result of a 
conscious practice of the Railroad, and. if so. whether anv violation of C. 151B is 
disclosed thereby. 

Dated at Boston this fourth day of May 1965. 

CO\I^ION^VE.\LTH OF MASS.\CHUSETTS 
M.\SS.\CHUSETTS COMMISSION .\GAINST 
DISCRIMINATION 
on relation of 
ED^\■ARD A. JANASZ, Complainant 
vs. 

ROGER TURGEON, Chairman, 
Chicopee School Committee and 
JOHN L. FITZPATRICK, Superintendent 
Public School Department 
Chicopee, Massachusetts, Respondents 

This cause came on for hearing before Acting Chairman Ben G. Shapiro, and Com- 
missioners Ruth M. BaLson, and John F. Albano, who, upon consideration of all of the 
evidence, set forth their findings, conclusions and orders as follows: 

Findings of Fact 

1. Complainant, a resident of the City of Chicopee, Massachusetts, is forty-seven 
\ears of age. He graduated from Boston University in 1948 with a major in General 
Business and also received a Masters in Education Degree from American International 
College in 1949. 

2. Complainant was an instructor at St. Michael's College starting in 1950 for a period 
of two years, where he taught business courses. 

3. Complainant was a teacher in the Chicopee System from 1955 through 1959, 
teaching Business ('Calculating) Machines and Business Mathematics, and was the 
holder of a teaching certificate issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

4. Complainant furthered his education by attending Yale University in 1960 in the 
field of Hospital Administration and spent the next vear as an administrative resident 
in a hospital. 

5. In April of 1962, the complainant applied for an administrative assistant's position 
in the Chicopee System and at the same time, applied for a teaching position, and on 
two other occasions after April of 1962, submitted applications for teaching positions. 

6. A Barbara Jean Graviec, age twenty-two, was hired as a reacher in the Chicopee 
System in .\pril of 1964 to teach Business Courses. 

7. Respondent, Fitzpatrick was unaware of the existence of General Laws Chapter 
151B Sections 4 and 5 as they pertain to discriminating against a person because of his 
age, until August of 1964, when he was visited by Roger "Williams Field Representative 
of the Commission .Against Discrimination. 

8. After the "^Villiams and respondent Fitzpatrick meeting in August of 1964. that 
part of the application for a teaching position in the Chicopee Svstem which required 
revealing one s age was deleted from said application form. 

9. In April of 1964, the respondent Fitzpatrick was put on notice regarding the 
legality of circling of an applicant's age on an application for emplovment bv School 
Committeewoman, Josephine Kord. 

10. During that period of time that complainant had applied for teaching positions, 
the respondent Superintendent Fitzpatrick had, in at least a few instances, circled the 



Complaint No. SI-35-A 



13 



age of applicants on application forms and considered their age in determining whether 
or not he would hire them. 

11. The complainant left the Chicopee System in 1959 and at that time, he was in 
good standing and considered highly qualified as a teacher of Business Courses by the 
resp>ondents. 

12. Between the time that the complainant left the Chicopee System in 1959 and 
when he applied for a teaching position in 1962 and to the time of this hearing, no 
ofiBcial of the Chicopee System has had an opportunity to observe his classroom teach- 
ing. 

13. from April, 1962, to the time of this hearing there have been teaching positions 
available which teaching positions complainant was qualified to teach. 

The following conclusions are set forth: 

(1) The parties hereto are proper parties within the meaning of General Laws 
Chapter 151B, Section 5. 

(2) The respondents, discriminated against the complainant on account of the com- 
plainant's age in violation of General Laws Chapter 151B, Section 4 and therefore did 
not hire him. 

(3) The orders herein made will effectuate tlie purposes of General Laws Chapter 
151B. 

On the basis of the foregoing, and pursuant to General Laws Chapter 151B, Sections 
4 and 5. it is herebv ordered, by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimina- 
tion, that the respondents, their agents and servants, 

1. Henceforth and in the future cease and desist and refrain from making any in- 
quirv. distinction, discrimination or restriction on accoimt of age in the hiring or 
offering to hire of personnel in the Chicopee School System. 

2. Forthwith hire the complainant as a teacher in the Chicopee System to teach 
Business Courses. 

3. Henceforth and in the future cease and desist and refrain from making any 
distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of the age of complainant in any 
terms, conditions or privileges of employment on rehiring or discharge of the com- 
plainant. 

Dated at Boston this fourth day of Mav 1965. 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION, 

in the matter of 
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST 
DISCRIMINATION, Complainant, 
vs. 

MR. AND MRS. PAUL EMERY, Respondents 

Upon all the evidence at the hearing herein the Massachusetts Commission Against 
Discrimination, by Malcolm C. 'Webber, Presiding Hearing Commissioner and Hearing 
Commissioners Ben G. Shapiro and John F. Albano, finds that the respondents Paul 
Emen.- and Velma M. Emery (referred to in this proceeding as Mr. and Mrs. Paul 
Emen), have engaged in unlawful discriminatorv practices as defined in Chapter 
151B, Section 4, Paragraph 7 of the Massachusetts General La^*s, and states its findings 
as follows: 

Findings of Fact 

Party Against \Vhom Acts of Alleged Discrimination Took Place 

1. The complaint dated February 10. 1965. was filed by the Massachusetts Commis- 
sion Against Discrimination for alleged discriminatory practices in violation of G. L. 
c. 151 B by the respondents against Mr. Milton M. Hopkins, Jr., occurring on Febru- 
ary 4, 1965. 

2. Mr. Hopkins is a Negro. His appearance, demeanor and speech are those of a 
man of good education and backgroimd. He is a imiversity graduate with advanced 



FINDINGS OF F.\CT, 
CONCLUSIONS OF LA^V 
AND ORDER 



14 



(k-erecs in electrical engineering, who retired from the United States Air Force with 
ihc rank of lieutenant colonel on January 31, 1965. Soon after February 4, 1965, he 
took the pt>sition of Director of Satellite Meteorological Operations at Allied Research 
Associates. Inc.. Cx)ncord, Massachusetts, at an annual salary in excess of $20,000. Mr. 
Hopkins was married on February 6. 1965. and in anticipation of this he was looking 
for an apartment in January and early February. He had been living in a three-room 
apartment in Billerica which he felt would be unsuitable for him and his wife. On 
Fcl)ruar^ 3. 1965. he and his fiance inspected the apartment owned by the respondents 
at 11 Cedar Street. Lexington. Massachusetts, and on February 4, 1965, he sought to 
rent it. 

The Respondents 

3. The respondents Paid Emery and A'elma >L Emery, husband and wife, reside, in 
WiUnington. Massachusetts. They own but do not themselves occupy or reside in the 
iwo-familv house in Lexington, Slassachusetts, numbered 9 and 11 Cedar Street. 

The Housing Accommodations and the Offering 

4. The apartment occupying the entire second floor of the house owned by the 
respondents in Lexington. Massachusetts, is numbered 11 Cedar Street. It is a self- 
contained apartment unit with a separate entrance. It had been rented by the re- 
spondents to an Air Force familv named Bowman. Sometime in January, 1965, the 
Bowmans gave notice to the respondents that they had been transferred and would 
be lea\ing: and the Bowmans surrendered occupancv and departed before February o, 
1965. 

5. On January 28, 1965, and on February 4, 1965, an advertisement placed by the 
respondents appeared in the real estate for rent column of a Lexington newspaper of 
general local circulation published weekly offering said 11 Cedar Street apartment for 
immediate occupancy at a rental of $140 a month. 

6. The first floor of the respondents' said house in Lexington is designated 9 Cedar 
Street. At the time of the actions complained of herein, and at all material times, 
said first floor apartment was rented by the respondents to an Air Force family named 
\\crv. who resided there. 

Facts Relating to the Unlawful Discriminatoiy Practices 

7. On February 3, 1965, Mr. Hopkins' fiance was informed by Mrs. Eileen Turchinetz, 
who lived next door to 9-11 Cedar Street, Lexington, Massachusetts, that the 11 Cedar 
Street apartment was for rent, and Mr. Hopkins was notified of this by his fiance. Mrs. 
Turchinetz is a volunteer Housing Aide associated with the Fair Housing Sub-Commit- 
tee of the Lexington Civil Rights Committee. 

8. Mr. Hopkms and his fiance, accompanied by Mrs. Turchinetz, visted the apart- 
ment around 1 P.M., February 3, 1965. They were shown it by Mrs. Avery. Mr. Avery 
was also present. The respondents had authorized the Averys, the dow'nstairs tenants, 
to show the apartment to prospective tenants but not to make rental commitments. 
At the conclusion of the visit. Mr. Hopkins said he was interested in the apartment 
and would telephone the respondents. Prior to Mr. Hopkins' visit, no other prospec- 
tive tenant had been shown the apartment by the Averys or by the respondents. 

9. After seeing the apartment, Mr. Hopkins made repeated efforts that afternoon 
and on the next day to reach the respondents by telephone at their 'Wilmington num- 
ber which had been listed in the newspaf>er advertisement and given him by the Averys. 
So also did Mrs. Turchinetz. They were unsuccessful. Mrs. Turchinetz sjK>ke to Mrs. 
Avery by telephone and endeavored to find out if she knew how to reach the respond- 
ents at work. Mrs. .\very replied that she did not know. Mrs. Turchinetz left Mr. 
Hopkins' telephone number with Mrs. Averv requesting her to relay it to the re- 
spondents. 

10. On the morning of February 4, 1965. Mrs. Turchinetz described her difficulties in 
reaching the respondents to Mrs. Barbara Petschek, a fellow member of the Fair 
Housing Sub-Committee of the Lexington Civil Rights Committee. Mrs. Petschek of- 
fered to tn, to get in touch with the respondents independently to see if the apartment 
was available. Mrs. Petschek thereupon made an appointment by telephone with Mrs. 



15 



Avery to see the apartment at 7:30 on the evening of February 4, 1965, giving her 
name as Roberts, and Mrs. Petchek thereafter visited it at that time. After inspecting 
the apartment she told Mrs. Avery that she was interested in renting the apartment, 
Mrs. Avery said that the owners generally called them at about 8:00 P.M. and while 
Mrs. Petschek was still with Mrs. Avery, Mrs. Avery received a telephone call from Mrs. 
Enierv. who said that she would come by later that evening. 

11. At 9:45 on the evening of February 4, 1965, Mrs. Petschek, accompanied by her 
husband, returned to 9-11 Cedar Street. Both respondents were there. Very shortly 
after the Petscheks arrived, Mr. Hopkins and Mrs. Turchinetz, by prearrangement with 
the Petscheks, arrived upon the premises. Mr. Hopkins told the respondents that he 
had seen the apartment the day before and had tried to contact them. Mrs. Emery 
asked Mr. Hopkins and Mrs. Turchinetz to wait downstairs while she showed the 
apartment to the "Roberts." 

12. Throughout the conversation upstairs, both respondents were present and spoke, 
and neither contradicted or expressed disapproval of or disagreement with any statement 
made by the other. The respondents told the Petscheks that the apartment was avail- 
able to them at any time if they wanted to rent it. They urged the Petscheks to give 
them an immediate deposit of some amount so that the respondents could show "the 
Negro downstairs" that the apartment had been taken. The resfwndents said to the 
Petscheks that under the Fair Housing Laws the resp>ondents w^ould have to rent to 
the Negro because they had no good reason or excuse not to do so, knowing nothing 
alK)Ut him. The respondents said that they feared losing their downstairs tenants if 
they rented to a Negro. The respondents further remarked that Mr. Hopkins had 
"first call" on the apartment, that he had been looking for the last couple of days, and 
they had been tr\ing to avoid him. The respondents said that an elderly lady had al- 
ready made a deposit on the apartment, but that that didn't settle things, that the 
apartment was available to the "Roberts," and that the deposit was just "a ston" to 
make sure that the respondents didn't have to rent to the man downstairs. 

13. After the foregoing conversation, the Petscheks informed the respondents that 
they wanted to think matters over. Thereafter the respondents came downstairs and 
talked to Mr. Hopkins. Mr. Hopkins told the res{X)ndents that he would like to rent 
the apartment and offered to leave a deposit at that time. The respondent Velma 
Emerv refused to take the deposit, giving as her reason that a deposit had already been 
made by an elderly lady. Mrs. Emen* said to Mr. Hopkins that the elderly lady would 
probably not take the apartment because of the stairs, but refused to accept the deposit 
or to make any commitment to Mr. Hopkins other than that she would call Mrs. Tur- 
chinetz by noon of the next day and let her know whether the respondents would rent 
to Mr. Hopkins. Mr. Hopkins told the respondents that he would be out of town the 
next day and for that reason requested them to call Mrs. Turchinetz. Mr. Hopkins 
gave Mrs. Turchinetz written authority to act for him in the rental of the apartment. 

14. Immediately before the respondents went to said 9-11 Cedar Street on the eve- 
ning of February 4, 1965, they had gone to the house of a friend of theirs, and had 
received a check for S50 from a Mrs. Pearl Cohen, an elderly lady in her 70's. Mre. 
Cohen has had arthritis and a bad back; she had never seen the 11 Cedar Street apart- 
ment; and she was living with her daughter, with whom she has continued to live. 
The respondents told Mrs. Cohen that they would return the S50 if Mrs. Cohen de- 
cided not to rent 11 Cedar Street. The following day, February 5, 1965, in the after- 
noon, l>efore renting 11 Cedar Street to Airman Herman Alan Griswell, the respondent 
Velma Emery returned the check to Mrs. Cohen without any objection on her part. Mrs. 
Cohen never visited 11 Cedar Street to examine into its suitability for herself. 

15. At 8:45 A.M. on February 5, 1965, Mrs. Emery telephoned Mrs. Turchinetz and 
stated that the apartment at 11 Cedar Street was no longer available. At the time she 
made this call, the apartment had not, in fact, been rented to anyone else nor had 
circumstances materially changed since the evening before. 

16. At noontime, February 5, 1965, Mr. Freeman, an agent of the Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination, interviewed Mrs. Emery at her place of work in 
Cambridge, in response to complaints that had been made to the Commission that 
morning with respect to Mr. Hopkins' unsuccessful attempt to rent the apartment. 



16 



Notwithstanding sucli interview, the respondents made no eflEort to communicate fur- 
ther with Mr. Hopkins or to examine further into his qualifications as a tenant. In- 
stead, that evening, February 5, 1965, the respondents entered into an agreement with 
Airman Herman Alan Griswell to rent 11 Cedar Street to him immediately. Under 
the agreement with Airman Griswell, $5 of the total of $140 monthly rental was to be 
credited towards tlie purchase price of a refrigerator to be furnished by the respondents, 
and when the full price was paid. Airman Griswell would own the refrigerator. 

17. Airman Griswell had been a friend of the Bowmans, the former tenants, and was 
familiar with 11 Cedar Street as the result of several visits with the Bowmans, prior 
to the time of their leaving. However, he did not communicate his interest in renting 
the apartment to the respondents until the morning of February 5, 1965, when Mr. 
A\ery with whom he worked in the Air Force, telephoned Mrs. Emery at her place of 
work and ananged for the respondents to meet him that evening. The respondents did 
not learn of Griswell's interest until the morning of February 5, 1965, subsequent to 
the time that Mrs. Emery had called Mrs. Turchinetz and said that the apartment was 
no longer available. Before the evening of February 5, 1965, there was no arrangement, 
understanding, promise or agreement, of any nature, between Griswell and the re- 
spondents to rent 11 Cedar Street to Griswell. Airman Griswell never met the re- 
spondents before that evening, and Mr. Avery had not indicated to Griswell earlier 
that day whether or not the respondents would rent to him. 

18. Airman Griswell moved into said 11 Cedar Street apartment on Saturday, Febru- 
ary 6. 1965, the morning following his agreement with the respondents. At the time he 
moved, he was occupying an apartment in Arlington as a tenant at will. While moving 
his belongings out of the Arlington apartment, on the morning of February 6, 1965, he 
fust told his Arlington landloard of his decision to leave. He paid his Arlington land- 
lord full rental for February and also paid the respondents $100 rent for the period 
February 6-28. 

19. Mr. Hopkins finally rented a new apartment on February 17, 1965, at 1105 Lex- 
ington Street, \Valtham, Massachusetts, where he resided at the time of the hearing. 

20. While the respondents received a check from Mrs. Cohen on February 4, 1965, 
neither the respondents nor Mrs. Cohen intended this "deposit" to bind Mrs. Cohen 
to take, and the resfK)ndents to rent the apartment to her. The "deposit" from Mrs. 
Cohen was merely an excuse for the respondents to refuse to rent the apartment to 
Mr. Hopkins. 

21. Even if the respondents had felt themselves bound to rent to Mrs. Cohen, they 
could have notified Mr. Hopkins or Mrs. Turchinetz, as his agent, after returning the 
check to Mrs. Cohen on the afternoon of February 5, 1965, that the apartment was 
available. This they did not do. 

22. Until the evening of February 5, 1965, there was no existing commitment to 
Airman Griswell such as would have taken priority over further consideration of Mr. 
Hopkins. The agreement to rent to Airman Griswell w^as made with full knowledge 
of Mr. Hopkins' desire to rent the apartment. 

23. There was no legitimate factor or reason why Mr. Hopkins was refused an op- 
portunity to rent the said apartment. While he did not volunteer the information 
that he had been an Air Force lieutenant colonel, the respondents made little effort 
to elicit this and other relevant items of background information from him. The re- 
spondents' dealings and negotiations with Mr. Hopkins were not conducted in good 
faith and were not such as to afford to him equal opportunity and consideration in the 
rental of said 11 Cedar Street apartment along with white applicants. 

24. The respondents denied, withheld and refused to rent to Mr. Hopkins the apart- 
ment at 11 Cedar Street, Lexington, for the sole or principal reason that Mr. Hopkins 
was a Negro. 

Conclusions of Law 

1. The apartment designated 11 Cedar Street comes within the definition of "other 
covered housing accommodations" within the meaning of Clause 12 of Section 1 of 
General Laws chapter 151B. 

2. The respondents denial of and refusal to rent said apartment to Milton M. Hop- 



17 



kins, Jr., constituted an unlawful practice within the meaning of Section 4 of General 
Laws chapter 151B, 

3. The respvondents course of conduct and dealings with respect to Milton M. Hop- 
kins, Jr., were such as to amount to a refusal to negotiate with him in good faith re- 
garding the leasing of said apartment and constituted an unlawful practice within the 
meaning of Section 4 of General Laws chapter 15 IB. 

ORDER 

Upon the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 
15 IB, of the General Laws of Massachusetts, it is hereby 
ORDERED, by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 
That the respondents Paul Emery and Velma M. Emen', their agents, servants, em- 
ployees, assigns and successors shall: 

1. Cease and desist from denying to and withholding from said Milton M. Hopkins, 
Jr. the said apartment at 11 Cedar Street, Lexington, Massachusetts. 

2. If said Milton M. Hopkins, Jr., no longer desires to rent said apartment, cease 
and desist from denying to any other prospective tenant, on the basis of race, creed, 
color, national origin or national ancestry, the opportunity to rent or lease or negotiate 
for the lease of said apartment at such time or times as said apartment may again 
hereafter be directly or through an agent made generally available to the public for 
lease or rental, by any means of public offering. 

3. For a period of one year from this date, to include or cause to be included in any 
printed or published advertisements of any such housing accommodation, including 
without limitation, any such newspaper advertisement, the following statement, printed 
as prominently as the most prominent word elsewhere therein: 

"The housing accommodations are offered to all qualified persons without regard 
to race or color." 

4. To send this Commission on or before the fifth day of each month subsequent 
hereto for twelve successive months a report, which shall state, for the next preceding 
month: 

a. The number, location and size by rooms each apartment which became or was 
available for rental during said month and which respondents had a right to 
lease or show to prospective tenants, and the date upon which such apartment 
became so available. 

b. The name, address and stated requirements of each Negro who inquired about 
apartments from respondents, but the foregoing shall not authorize the making of 
any inquiry prohibited by item No. 2 of this order. 

c. Whether respondents rented any such apartment to any such Negro, and if so, 
which apartment. 

5. Notify the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination at its oflBces at 41 
Tremont Street, Boston 8, Massachusetts, within 30 days after service of this order as 
to steps respondents have taken to comply with such order. 

Dated 9 July 1965 Boston, Suffolk County. 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST 
DISCRIMINATION 
on relation of 
DAVID DUNCAN, III, Complainant 
vs. 

ROBERT FLYNN, REALTOR, Respondent 

This cause came on for hearing before Chairman Malcolm C. "Webber and Commis- 
sioners Ben G. Shapiro and Ruth M. Batson, who, upon consideration of all the evi- 
dence, set forth their findings, conclusions and orders as follows: 



EXECUTRE DEPARTMENT 
FINDINGS OF FACT, 
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 
AND ORDERS 
No. SPrH-II-4-C 



18 



Findings of Fact 

1. Complainant is a Negro and a resident of the City of Springfield. 

2. Respondent is a self-employed real estate bix)ker of over ten years experience in 
the real estate business and has been operating out of his home at 311 Farmington 
.\\ciuic. Longmeadow, Massachusetts, since the first part of 1965. 

The respondent, acting as a broker, caused an advertisement to be printed in a 
local newspaper offering for sale certain property located at 24 Pine Hill Road, 
Springfield, Massachusetts. 

1. The wife of the complainant read the above-mentioned advertisement and spoke 
()\er the telephone with the respondent concerning same. At such time she received 
complete details from the respondent as to the number of rooms, fireplaces, size of lot, 
assessed valuation, taxes on the house, age and type of construction of the house, direc- 
tions to the house and asking price of the house of $21,500, which was subject to pos- 
sil)lv going down through negotiation. 

.'). An appointment was made to see the house on February 6, 1965 and directions to 
(lie house were given by the respondent to the wife of the complainant. The respond- 
ent met with the complainant, his wife and daughter on this date and showed them 
through the house. Following the examination of the house, the complainant asked 
the respondent the sale price of the house and was informed that the price was $25,000, 
which was subject to go up. Upon the complainant stating this his wife had received 
a price of $21,500 over the telephone, the respondent stated that the complainant's wife 
must have been mistaken. 

6. On February 15, 1965, one, Elizabeth Grandison, a white lady, formerly of lOS 
Longfellow Drive, Longmeadow, Massachusetts, telephoned and spoke with the respond- 
ent concerning an advertisement in the paper and was informed the house was $21,500 
and could go for less. An appointment was made to see the house for that afternoon 
and at 1:30 p.m. the respondent picked up Mrs. Grandison and an unidentified lady 
friend and brought them over to 24 Pine Hill Road and showed them the property. 
The respondent showed Mrs. Grandison a multiple listing book with a picture of the 
house and a price of $21,500 on it. The respondent stated the house used to be $21,900, 
was now $21,500 including taking over about $100 payments remaining to be paid on 
the washer and dryer, and even possibly could be purchased for $20,000. Mrs. Grandison 
stated she went to the house with the respondent to test the house and then reported 
the results of the visit on February 15, 1965 to Mr. Williams of the Massachusetts Com- 
mission Against Discrimination. 

7. The respondent did not investigate the background of either the complainant or 
said Elizabeth Grandison as to race prior to confronting them in person. 

8. If the complainant had not been a Negro, the respondent would have immedi- 
ately quoted the sale price of $21,500 of said house to him. 

Conclusions 
The following conclusions are set forth: 

(1) Respondent is a real estate broker and agent offering for purchase and sale real 
estate properties to the general public by means of a public offering, all within the 
meaning of Section V of Chapter 15 IB of the General Laws. 

(2) The respondent increased the sale price of the said house to withhold from and 
discriminate against complainant on account of complainant's color in violation of 
G. L. c. 151B, 4 (7). 

(3) The orders herein made will effectuate the purposes of c. 151B of the General 
Laws. 

ORDER 

Upon the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 
15 IB of the General Laws of Massachusetts, it is hereby 
ORDERED by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 
Tliat the respondent Robert Flynn shall. 



19 



1. Cease and desist from 

(a) Denying to the complainant, David Duncan, III, the opportunity to purchase 
any house or land for which said respondent is or may hereafter be acting as the real 
estate broker on the same terms, conditions or privileges as said house or land may be 
made available to any other person. 

(b) Denying to any other person because of that person's race, creed, color, national 
origin or national ancestry the opportunity to purchase any house or land for which 
said respondent may be acting as real estate broker on the same terms, conditions or 
privileges as said house or land may be made available to all other persons. 

(c) Giving consideration to factors of race, creed, color, national origin or national 
ancestry in fixing the price or terms or conditions of sale of any house or land for 
which said respondent is or may hereafter be acting as real estate broker. 

2. Include in each advertisement which said respondent as real estate broker causes 
to be published in any newspaper offering properties for sale or rental, a statement, in 
form satisfactory to the Commission, giving notice that all properties offered by the 
respondent are subject to the Massachusetts Laws Against Discrimination and are 
available without reference to race, creed, color, national origin or national ancestry. 
Said statement shall appear in every said advertisement published during the first 
six montlis after the date of service of this order, after which it may be discontinued; 
provided that said statement shall not be discontinued (even if said six months period 
has elapsed) until it has appeared in newspapers published on twenty-six separate dates. 

3. Notify the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination at its office at 41 
Treraont Street, Boston 8, Massachusetts, in writing within forty (40) days of the date 
of service of this order as to the steps the respondent has taken and is taking to com- 
ply with each item of this Order. 

Date: September 20, 1965. 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST 
DISCRIMINATION 
on relation of 
IVA HARGROVE, Complainant 
36 Macy Avenue, Brockton, Massachusetts 
vs. 

HAZEL M. O'BRIEN, Respondent 
30 .\ppleton Street, Brockton, Massachusetts 
Owner of Record of 
30 Appleton Street, Brockton, Massachusetts 

This cause came on for hearing before Presiding Hearing Chairman Malcolm C. 
Webber, Commissioner Ruth M. Batson and Commissioner John F. Albano, who, upon 
consideration of all the evidence, set forth their findings, conclusions and orders as 
follows: 

Findings of Fact 

(1) Complainant is a Negro and a resident of the City of Brockton. 

(2) Respondent owns but does not occupy a three-family dwelling located at 35 
Appleton Street, Brockton. 

(3) On July 2, 1965, the respondent caused to be printed in the Brockton Enter- 
prise, a newspaper of general circulation in Brockton, the following adveortisement: 

'first floor, 6 room apartment. Centrally located. Clean, quiet. Adults only 
JU 7-9502." 

JU 7-9502 is the number of the telephone at the respondent's home. 

(4) The complainant read the above-mentioned advertisement, telephoned, and was 
told that the apartment was available but she could not see the respondent that week. 
The next week the complainant went to see the apartment. She received no answer 
when she rang the bell at the front door of the resfK)ndent's home. Two weeks later, 
the complainant saw the same advertisement in the newspaper again. She telephoned 
and was told by the respondent's husband that the respondent would be home at any 
time during the next week. 



Complaint No. PrH VIII-57-C 



20 



(5) On July 20, 1965, the complainant went with her sister and Mrs. Edwin Guise, 
Sr. to see the apartment. Mrs. Guise parked the car in front of the respondent's home 
at 30 Appleton Street, went to the front door and inquired of the apartment. The 
respondent told her that the apartment was still available and gave her the key. The 
complainant and her sister remained in the car whioh could not been seen from the 
side door. Thereupon the complainant, her sister and Mrs. Guise went across the street 
and looked at the apartment. Mrs, Guise informed the complainant that the rent was 
$72 a month. 

(6) After seeing the apartment the complainant, her sister and Mrs. Guise went back 
to see the respondent. The complainant expressed to the respondent her interest in 
renting the apartment. The respondent stated that she "probably" was going to sell 
the house and would have to talk it over with her husband. 

(7) The complainant offered her name and telephone number and asked the re- 
spondent to contact her if she decided not to sell the house. The respondent sought 
no information from the complainant, either orally or by written application form. 

(8) The next day, the complainant called the respondent and inquired of the status 
of the apartment. The complainant offered a deposit but was told by the respondent 
that she was making plans with her husband to sell the property. 

(9) On July 22, 1965, one Mrs. Karahalis telephoned the arespondent and was told 
that the apartment was still available. Appointment was made to see apartment at 
8 o'clock that evening. About that time Mr. and Mrs. Karahalis went to the respon- 
dent's home and were given the key to the apartment. When the Karahalises returned 
from looking at the apartment, the respondent gave them an application to complete. 
The respondent showed the Karahalises other applications and stated that she had 
some other people come in whom she did not want and did not bother writing an 
application, Mr. Karahalis offered a deposit which the respondent refused giving as 
her reason that she wanted to check their references. She told the Karahalises that 
they could clean up the apartment and be ready to move in in August if they wanted 
to pay a month's xent. 

(10) The next day, after learning that the Karahalises were a test couple, the respon- 
dent went to their home. She inquired of them what they were trying to do to her. 
.\fter several hours of conversation, the respondent stated that She was having trouble 
with the neighbors over the white tenants to whom she had rented the second floor 
apartment; and stated, "What would they ever do to me if I let a Negro in." Also, she 
stated that a Negro family had bought or moved into a house nearby and the house 
was in bad shape, that they sit on the front porch and do nothing about it. 

(11) During the conversation with the Karahalises at their house, the respondent 
stated her intention to sell the house. 

(12) On July 23, the respondent was visited by Lloyd Randolph, an agent of the 
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, in response to the complaint. Be- 
fore calling at the respondent's home, Mr. Randolph telephoned the number listed in 
the advertisement. The respondent identified herself and Mr. Randolph informed her 
that he was interested in the apartment. The respondent stated that it was still avail- 
able and offered to show it to him at 6 o'clock that evening. Mr. Randolph went im- 
mediately to interview the respondent at her home. During the course of the conversa- 
tion, the respondent stated that she made out applications for people she thought 
might be all right and for others she didn't. She stated that she had planned to rent 
to the Karahalises. 

(13 The complainant fmally rented an apartment at 14 Cottage Street, Brockton 
where she resided at the time of the hearing. 

(14) The respondent denied, withheld and refused to rent to Miss 'Hargrove the 
apartment at 35 Appleton Street, Brockton, for the sole reason that Miss Hargrove was 
a Negro. 

Conclusions of Law 

1. The apartment at 35 Appleton Street, Brockton comes within the definition of 
"other covered housing accommodations" within the meaning of Clause 12 of Section 
1 of G. L. chapter 151B. 



21 



2. Respondent, Hazel M. O'Brien, did discriminate against the complainant on ac- 
count of complainant's color, in violation of G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (6). 

3. The orders herein made will effectuate the purposes of c. 151B of the General 
Laws. 

Upon the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 
151B of the General Laws of Massachusetts, it is hereby 
ORDERED by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 
That the respondent. Hazel M. O'Brien, her agents and servants, 

1. Henceforth and in the future cease and desist and refrain from making any in- 
quiry, distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, creed, color, national 
origin or national ancestry, in the rental, leasing or offering for sale any housing ac- 
commodation owned or controlled. 

2. Henceforth and in the future cease and desist and refrain from giving considera- 
tion to the factors of race, creed, color, national origin or naticmal ancestr)^ in the 
rental, leasing or offering for sale any housing accommodation owned or controlled. 

3. Henceforth and in the future cease and desist and refrain from denying to any 
other person because of that person's race, creed, color, national origin or national an- 
cestry the opportunity to rent, lease or purchase any housing accommodation owned or 
controlled. 

4. Cease and desist and refrain from denying to the complainant, Iva Hargrove, the 
opportunity to rent the first floor apartment located at 35 Appleton Street, Brockton, 
County of Plymouth, on the same terms, conditions, or priWleges as said housing ac- 
commodaticrti may be made available to any other person. 

5. Send to this Commission on or before the fifth day of each month subsequent 
hereto for twelve successive months a report, which shall state for the next preceding 
month: 

a. The number, location and size of rooms of each apartment which became or was 
available for rental during said month and which respondent had a right to rent 
or lease or show to prospective tenants; and the date upon which such apartment 
became so available. 

b. The name, address and stated requirements of each Negro who inquired about a 
vacant apartment from respondent, but the foregoing shall not authorize the mak- 
ing of any inquiry- prohibited by item No. 1 of this order. 

c. Whether respondent rented any such apartment to any such Negro, and if so, 
which apartment. 

6. Forthwith to offer in WTiting to rent to complainant, Iva Hargrove (with a copy 
to this Commission) the apartment located at 35 Appleton Street, Brockton, County of 
Plymouth, for which complainant applied unless the same heretofore has been rented 
to another, in which event to offer the next apartment to become available all on the 
same terms, provisions and conditions as apply to the public generally. 

7. Notify this Commission within thirty days from the date hereof of your compli- 
ance with the foregoing. 

Dated at Boston this fifteenth day of October 1965. 

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 
Discrimination in employment was recognized by the Massachusetts Legislature in 
1946 when it passed a law providing for a Fair Employment Practice Law and estab- 
lishing a Commission to be known then as the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practice 
Commission. Hence in Massachusetts for 19 years, there has been a law prohibiting 
discrimination in employment, and after 19 years the fact is that many jobs are still 
unavailable to members of minority groups. This is a problem that besets the nation 
and all must assume their share of the burden in this Commonwealth. The Commis- 
sion being painfully aware of its responsibility in this area has attempted to take steps 
to make the Massachusetts laws work to greater advantage. The Commission realizes 
that there must be a more creative use of the laws. It believes that its f>owers provide 
it with a real opportunity to broaden its scope in order to meet today's more complex 
needs and desired goals. 



22 



In R'bruarv of 1%4. the Commission authorized, by vote, Commissioner Ruth M. 
Batst)n to hold conferences with representatives of various industries to determine the 
status of the Negro employee in their respective industry. This program, though se- 
\t'relv hampered bv staff and budgetary limitations and though admittedlv uncoordi- 
nated has produced some results. These results range from statements of good will and 
intent to the actual hiring and upgrading of Negroes. 

One example of Commission activity in this field can be cited. A conference was 
I ailed which included union, civil rights and comm4.mity representatives and the man- 
agement of the Sheraton Boston. It was felt that such a meeting held in advance of 
the opening of the hotel would be a constructive step in offering employment oppor- 
tunities for members of minority groups. As a result of this conference a job oppor- 
iiniitv day was held in the Roxbury District of Boston at Freedom House, a communitv 
civic center. The New Sheraton Bk)Ston opened in April 1965 with Negroes emploved 
in apparently heretofore closed positions such as reservation and room clerks, circuit 
board operators and assistant bell captain. The Commission continued to follow 
through bv holding conferences with Sheraton officials and employees in order not to 
lose these new gains. 

Other conferences covering a wide range of jobs have produced just as gratifying 
results. After such a meeting in New Bedford with representatives of the grocery in- 
ilustrv. minority group representatives stated that this was the first time that such a 
confrontation had taken place. 

If nothing else, these conferences ha\e uncovered and underscored glaring inequities 
which exist in such growing industries as television and radio, graphic arts, electronics, 
finance and trust and transportation. It is obvious that this kind of fragmented but 
sincere attempt on the part of the Commission should become a cohesive well organized 
program. This may indicate a new departure from the traditional complaint by com- 
plaint method. Even though the case load has increased and the Commission does 
e\erything in its power to encourage more citizens to avail themselves of this right — 
this method has not proven to be effecti\e by itself in opening up greater employment 
opportunities. 

The Commission research and community relations division have both contributed 
to make its efforts that of a team approach. If it were able to use the tools offered by 
these divisions more extensively, greater results would be forthcoming. 

The Commission is grateful for the cooperation extended to this new affirmative 
action program not only by civil rights and community groups, but also by business 
and management representatives who join it in the desire to correct the wrongs created 
by past sins of ommission and commission. 

Much work remains to be done. The same approach used with management must 
be applied to unions. The Commission plans to continue its work with industries 
where there appears to be an absence of Negro workers or a segregated emplovment 
pattern. It has planned research on the enforcement and follow-up of anti-discrimina- 
tion clauses in state and city contracts. ^Vhat it hopes is reflected in this report is not 
only concern, but determination to do something about this problem. 

LEGISLATION 

The law administered by the Commission was amended significantlv in three areas 
by the following chapters to the Acts of 1965: 

Chapter 213 — Commercial Space 

This act added commercial space to the housing accommodations law so that now 
there may be no discrimination in the rental, lease or sale of commercial space to a 
person because of such person's race, creed, color or national origin. Commercial Space 
is defined as "any space in a building structure or portion thereof which is used or 
occupied or intended, arranged or designed to be used or occupied for the manufac- 
ture, sale, resale, processing, reprocessing, displaying, storing, handling, garaging or 
distribution of personal property; and any space which is used or occupied or is in- 
tended, arranged or designed to be used or occupied as a separate business or profes- 
sional unit or office in any building structure or portion thereof. " 



23 



Chapter 39/ — Sex Employment 

This act prohibits discrimination in employment against an individual because of 
sex unless based upon a bona-fide occupational qualification. This legislation applies 
to employers, labor organizations and employment agencies. It adds sex as a qualifica- 
tion for which there may be no discrimination against an individual to those of race, 
color, religious creed, national origin, age or ancestry in the fair employment practice 
law. 

Cliapter 369 — Compensatory Damages 

Under terms of this provision if the Commission shall find at any hearing that a 
respondent has violated the housing law it may in addition to any other action which 
it may take, award to the petitioner damages not to exceed one thousand dollars which 
are not limited to but shall include expense incurred by the petitioner for obtaining 
alternative accommodations, for storage of goods and effects, for moving and any other 
costs actually incurred as a residt of the unlawful practice or violation. However, such 
damages shall not include attorney's fees. 

Proposed Legislation 

The Commission has resubmitted two bills, which were tabled by the legislature 
last vear. These bills are House 2130 and House 2306. 

House 2130 would reduce from three days to one the time required of the Commis- 
sion to notify a respondent that an injunction will be sought against him in equity 
session of the superior court. 

House 2306 would authorize the Commission to prescribe that employers, employment 
agencies and labor organizations keep and maintain records relating to race, color, or 
national origin required to comply or evidence compliance with any executive order 
issued by the President of the United States prescribing fair employment practices for 
United States government contractors and sub-contractors or any rules and regulations 
issued thereunder, or if not subject to such order, in the manner prescribed therein 
and subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. 

Such legislation shall apply only to employers employing more than the number set 
fortli below during such period. 



In 1965, the Research Division, established in April 1964, with the appointment of 
a Research Director, consolidated an intensive program outlined and partially launched 
by the beginning of the year. In addition, the administrative structure of the division 
— of one — was strengthened by heavy reliance on unusual volunteer assistance from 
both the academic community and a small corps of dedicated citizens. 

Determining the broad functions of a research program, to be integrally related to 
Commission work, had been the first hurdle. Change nationally and locally and within 
the Commission itself, was the shifting backdrop in this attempt to develop and im- 
plement a meaningful research program. But defining short-term and long-range goals 
in research proved far less constricting than the major stumbling-block to the virtual 
absence of funding for needed personnel and operating expenses. 

Indeed, it was soon apparent that Commission initiative in research could take 
many forms: needed internally was the development of systematic records to help the 
Commission keep track of case methods, trends and changes — generally to know what 
it was doing at all times. Equally obvious was the need for external research to docu- 
ment patterns of discrimination, particularly in employment and housing and evaluat- 
ing new programs — public and private — designed to solve minority group problems. 
But funds for even a minimal program were lacking. 

In this context, the Commission's resort to "domestic peace corp" techniques must 



Period Enditig 
June 30, 1963 
June 30, 1966 
June 30, 1967 
June 30, 1968 



Minimum Employees 
or Members 



100 
75 
50 
25 



RESEARCH DIVISION 



24 



cany at least muted overtones of excitement in a new era of warm community response 
to a deeply felt public need. 

Cooperating in the "talent" search have been a newly constituted Research Advisory 
Council and community organizations like the League of \Vomen Voters and the Fed- 
eration of Committees for Fair Housing and Human Rights. Emerging from this co- 
operation has been a new, encouraging community of interest between citizens and 
HO\ernmeni. with implications of better use of the total community's resources in cop- 
ing with change. 

But above all, the aid and comfort proffered by these citizens and the down-to-earth 
nature of their assistance seems noteworthy; university centers have offered social sci- 
ence expertise and "kitchen variety" help— in designing a questionnaire and then 
iuimtx)graphing it; professors have rounded up students to code, punch IBM cards — 
and have personally run off series of tabulations for survey research analysis students, 
housewi\es — even one sociologist on leave-of-absence from his work in South America 
— have given clerical, administrative and expert technical assistance on a weekly, or 
dailv, basis for the programs consolidated through the year. 

The roster of notable names on our Research Advisory Council, comprised of uni- 
\ci-sity and agency research specialists, by no means encompasses the total response to 
requests for assistance by the Commission. Many others have offered their services. 
Such offers have to be sifted and explored; ensuing programs have to be coordinated; 
and the limited time of the lone staff member of the Division has deterred the Com- 
mission from pushing beyond the considerable program envisaged as consolidating the 
liivision as a functioning unit of the Commission. 

I hk Rf.search Proc.ram 

Major Studies 

1. \Vith the cooperation of the Boston Public School System, a study of the initial 
employment experience of Negro and white recent vocational school graduates was 
launched, with the co- sponsorship of the Social Relations Department of Johns Hopkins 
University under a Social Security Administration grant. The Commission gathered 
data on 960 graduates of the Boston Trade High School, 372 of the Girls' High School 
and Jamaica Plain High School graduates and has forw^arded the data to the Social 
Security Administration for tabulation. Incidence of emplo^Tnent, wage rates achieved 
and industries entered the first year following graduation for Negro and white grad- 
uates of five classes will be analyzed. 

2. A mail questionnaire designed to determine awareness of anti-discrimination laws 
and attitudes toward the Commission was sent to 212 civil rights workers, including 
top and middle leadership, in 18 organizations, whose primary focus is civil rights. 119 
replies were received and cross-tabulated on an IBM computer. Most of the tabulations 
had been analyzed by the end of the year and hypotheses formulated, prior to final 
analysis. A second brief questionnaire was sent directly to 60 organizations, netting 40 
replies, to provide added insights to the Commission's relationship with private organ- 
izations, considered as channels to broadening general public awareness of the Com- 
mission's legal and educational resources. 

3. The MCAD housing case follow-up procedure, designed as a check of successful 
housing cases, was intensified and regularized, under two volunteer project directors in 
Boston and Springfield and using volunteer interviewers. 18 cases were followed up by 
two to three personal interviews, with standard questionnaires, to determine whether 
the case complainant has remained, what community reactions he has encountered, and 
in what areas, if any, he has achieved integration. Analysis of 30-35 cases is contem- 
plated to assess the procedure and re-vamp it into a study of larger proportions, with 
better funding. 

4. The Director conducted 21 in-depth interviews of top management personnel, 
including representatives of companies participating in one of the first Freedom House 
job recruitment days in Roxbury, and a random group of executives in a middle-size 
city in an economically depressed area of Massachusetts. A report on the latter group 
of inteniews was prepared as an impressionistic view of business attitudes towards 
equal opportunity programs. The Director also participated in 8 additional special 
meetings and conferences with top management representatives, in conjunction with 
Commissioner Ruth M. Batson's special industrial-conferential program. 



25 



Major Administrative Systems and Techniques 
1. Except for final editing, a complete coding system for MCAD housing and em- 
ployment cases had been developed by the end of the year. Designed for use on the 
Royal McBee data-processing system (keysorter), many categories related to complain- 
ants, respondents. Commission procedures and findings were assigned codes to permit 
the Commission to study such aspects of case trends as size of case load, which kinds of 
cases secure housing and jobs, locations of moves, case durations, etc. 1965 cases, and 
all future cases would be coded, it was expected. 

2. A new statistical form was devised and printed for maintaining monthly and an- 
nual over-all case statistics. All statistical record-keeping was transferred to the Re- 
search Division, at mid-year. 

3. A limited shelf-service of reference materials and bibliographies in aspects of 
state and federal anti-discrimination statutes and relevant civil rights issues has been 
organized, catalogued and used effectively with an increasing flow of scholars and stu- 
dents seeking materials for course work or field study. As the need for a research co- 
ordinating service in civil rights, particularly for the Greater Boston area, has become 
increasingly evident, a letter was sent on a local university center's letterhead to more 
than 200 university social science departments and public and private agencies inquir- 
ing about their willingness to work mutually with MCAD by funnelling relevant ma- 
terials to the Commission and by sponsoring, in methods-teaching courses, cooperative 
research or research recommended by MCAD, using students as field researchers. 50-odd 
affirmative replies were received and a graduate student at another university center 
agreed to follow-up the replies and other jwtential cooperative research contacts, on 
the basis of a check list of needed action -research developed by the Research Division. 

Wayne State University — Study of Discriminatory Patterns in hidustry 
In November, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination completed ar- 
rangements with Wayne State University and the Equal Employment Opportunities 
Commission of the United States to accept a grant in the amount of $11,000 to do a 
pilot study of equal employment opportunities in a selected Massachusetts industry. 
Similar studies are being conducted in 11 other states and the District of Columbia. 

The study in Massachusetts is being conducted in the transportation industry. Under 
consideration will be employment, recruitment, promotion and training policies and 
practices. 

A sampling of companies in the airline, bus and street railway, railroads, and truck- 
ing industries will be interviewed. The survey is being conducted in two parts. First 
a questionnaire is submitted to a top corporate official and an employment official at 
each company. Then, a second questionnaire is submitted to a sampling of the labor 
union officials at each company. In this way a comprehensive picture will be gained of 
the respective points of view. It is expected that this project will develop new research 
tools with which to encourage affirmative action programs in the field of equal em- 
ployment opportunity. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

Similar to the condition pertaining in 1964, the case load increased by a significant 
percentage in 1965 so that the volume shows an increase of 20.5 percent in 1965 over 
1964 or a percentage of 56 for the past two years combined. This increase was the 
trend before August 2, 1965. However, with this being the effective date of the new 
sex amendment to the employment law there has been a spurt in the number of cases 
filed with the Commission. It is anticipated that the volume of sex complaints will 
continue to increase significantly. 

Inherent with the increased case volume is the problem of endeavoring to have the 
cases processed, investigated and reported by the Commission staff which is too limited 
to adequately handle the case load with the dispatch regarded essential to produce the 
greatest amoimt of effectiveness and proficiency. For the purpose of performing the 
job in the manner prescribed by the Commission and found to be desirous by the pub- 
lic the Commission sought this past year an increase in budget which would allow for 
the acquisition of additional staff members and afford funds to pay for the concomitant 
services. Hampered by the failure to receive the requisite appropriation the Commis- 
sion finds itself obligated to press for adequate appropriation so that it can provide 
greater and improved service and protection to the citizens of the Commonwealth. 



26 



COMPLAINTS FILED 1965 
Type of Complaint, Case and Basis of Charge 
Initiated By: 



Commission Individual Total 



Basis 

of Charge 


Complaints 


Investigations* 




Race or Color 


No. Pet. 

15 2 


No. Pet. 
20 3 


No. Pet. 

247 39 




No. Pet. 
282 44 


Religious Creed 


1 .2 





2 .3 


3 .5 


National Origin 


2 .3 


1 .2 


12 2 


15 2 


Age 


276** 43 





22 3 


298 47 


Sex 


2 .3 


1 .2 


37 6 


40 6 


Total 


296 46 


22 3 


320 50 


638 100 



* InvestiKaiiou must be voted by the entire Comuiis.-ion. Such ca^es involve instances of al- 
leged discrimination in which the jurisdiction of the Commission is not clear, affidavits from 
individuals involved cannot be obtained, or insufficient evidence is available for the Commis- 
sion to initiate the complaint itself. F^iU commission investigatory -conciliation practices are 
followed in these cases. 



Age complaints are based on illegal advertisements and applications. As part of the investiga- 
tion, a pattern study is made to uncover any other violations of the law. 



N'ote: Percentages may not add because of rounding. 

COMPLAINTS FILED 1965 
Type of Complaint, Case and Jurisdiction 
Initiated By: 
Commission Individual 



Jurisdiction 



Complaints 



Investigations 



Total 





No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet. 


Employment 


287 


45 




.2 


172 


2.1 


460 


72 


Private Housing 


6 


1 


16 3 


127 


20 


149 


23 


Public Housing 














1 


9 


1 


.2 


Public 

Accommodations 


3 


.5 








19 


3 


22 


3 


Fair Education 








5 


1 


1 .2 


6 


1 


Total 


296 


46 


22 


3 


320 


50 


688 


100 



Note: Percentages may not add because of rounding. 



27 



DISPOSITION OF CASES CLOSED BY COMMISSION 

Current Report Year (January 1, 1965-December 31, 1965) 

Ftiblic 





Kiiiploi/- 


I'ri life 


l\>bHc 


Acconimo- 


Fair 






me lit 


Housing 


11 (III n in y 


(lutUHIS 


ErI II rat ion 


Jati 


Disposition 














Final Order 














(After Pub. Bring.) 














Cease and Desist 




3 











4 


No Cause (Dismissed) 


1 














1 


.\fter Investigation 














and Conference 














(Conciliated) 


333 


97 





17 





447 


Lack of Probable 














Cause 


59 


27 


3 


2 


2 


93 


Lack of Jurisdiction 


16 


2 





I 





19 


Withdrawn 


5 


3 











8 


Totals 


415 


132 


3 


20 


2 


572 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY, CURRENT REPORT YEAR 
(JANUARY 1. 1965-DECEMBER 31, 1965) 
Complaints of Alleged Discrimination: Filed 1965 

Public 



Basic 

Race or Color 
Religious Creed 
National Origin 
Age 
Sex 

1 otals: 



Employment 
No. Pet. 
115 18 

3 .5 

4 1 
298 47 

40 6 



Pri ate 
Ho II .sin (J 
No. Pet. 
142 22 

7 1 



Public 
Housing 
No. Pet. 
1 .2 





A ceonimo- 
ddtionn 



Fair 
Eiluention 



No. 
18 

4 



Pet. 
3 

1 



.Vo. 
6 





Pet. 
1 





460 72 



149 23 



.2 18 3 



6 1 



Totrl 

\o. Pe\ 
282 44 
3 .5 

15 2 
298 47 

40 6 

638 100 



Note: Percontages may not add because of rounding. Decimals are used only for iu>taii es 
below \-</f. 

CUMULATIVE (NOVEMBER 10, 1946-DECEMBER 31, 1965) 

Puhlic 





Employ- 


Private 


Public 


Accom- 


Fair 


Toti 




ment 


Housing 


Housing 


modations 


Education 


Disposition 










Final Order 


4 


13 





2 





19 


After Investigation 














and Conference 














(Conciliated) 


3193 


394 


11 


257 


16 


3871 


Lack of Probable Cause 


949 


189 


7 


146 


13 


1304 


Lack of Jurisdiction 


71 


31 





14 





116 


\\ ithdrawn 


95 


20 


1 


9 


2 


127 


Totals 


4312 


647 


19 


428 


31 


5437 



CASES PENDING (IN PROGRESS) CURRENT REPORT YEAR 
Open Cases — December 31, 1965 

Public Hearings 
in Process 





Employment 
Housing (Private) 
Public Housing 
Public Accommodation 
Fair Education 



Under Inves- 
tigation* 

100 
36 

2 

3 



Held Open for 
Compliance 

25 
8 
1 




Total 

125 
47 

1 

2 

4 



Totals 



141 



Cases unJer investigation are generally filed no earlier thf 
None antedate Januarv. 19fi5. 



3 179 

n 4 months prior to date publislied. 



28 



COMPARATIVE PRIVATE HOUSING CASE STATISTICS 
(Formal Complaints Only) 
December 31, 1965 



Number of complaints 
filed: 

Number closed after 

investigation and 

conference (conciliated) 
Number dismissed: 
Number pending close of 

year: 

Type of Charge* 
Percentage of complaints 

based on color: 
Percentage based on 

religion 



1958 
12 



1959 
24 



1960 
69 



47 

22 



1961 
81 



1962 
57 



196? 
107 



1964 
102 



38 



100% 96% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 



0% 4% 



0% 0% 0% 0% 



* Differences involve cases based on national origin. 

Settlement 

Number settled by 

conciliation: 2 11 47 58 

Number to reach public 

hearing: 11 

Number to reach court 

action:** 3 

How many complainants got 

the accommodation at 

issue: 1 2 6 10 

How many got a 

comparable unit? 2 4 

How many were offered, 

•but refused the unit at 

issue or a comparable one: 1 4 17 26 



36 



** Includes injunctions sought, consent decrees, and cases continuing to judicial 
Dismissals 

Complaint not substantiated 1 8 18 13 18 14 37 

Not covered by law: 7 5 2 4 8 1 5 

Dropped by complainant: 2 2 4 2 2 

Note: Commission-voted investigations are not included in this chart. 



1965 
134 



95% 
0% 



94 
6 
30 

20 

11 

33 

review, 

37 
2 
3 



Total 
586 



345 
177 



345 
19 
56 

77 

23 

150 



126 
35 
15 



31 



PUBLIC HOUSING SURVEY STATISTICS 

Each year a review is made of the tenant selection policies of twenty-seven Public 
Housing Authorities throughout the Commonwealth to determine that equar oppor- 
tunity for public housing is accorded every citizen regardless of the factors of race, 
color, creed, or religion. 

Each year the non-white family census in the developments under the jurisdiction of 
the Authorities is obtained. 

This year the statistics, reproduced herein, reveal the number of non-white families 
in occupancy as of 31 December 1965. 

BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 


No. of Units 


No. 


of Non-White Familit 






1962 


1963 


196-f 


1963 


Broadway 


972 


15 


15 


19 


23 


Camden Street 


72 


71 


72 


72 


72 


Commonwealth 


648 


14 


17 


19 


26 


Faneuil 


258 


2 


3 


3 


12 


Fairmont 


202 











4 


Archdale 


288 


4 


4 


7 


17 


Orient Heights 


354 


5 


o 


6 


9 


Gallivan Boulevard 


251 





1 


9 


11 


Franklin Field 


504 


16 


19 


26 


55 


South Street 


1 90 


u 





1 


7 


Total 


3 ,00 1 


1 97 


133 


155 




Fedkral Program 
















1962 


1963 


1964 


196 


Charlestown 


1.149 


4 


,5 


5 


10 


Mission Hill 


1 .02-5 


1 


3 


21 


42 


Lenox Street 


.'}06 


298 


305 


299 


303 


Orchard Park 






9fi7 


458 


.514 




558 


275 


276 


290 


308 


Heath Street 


420 


11 


49 . 


90 


136 


Last Boston 


414 










10 


Franklin Hill Avenue 


375 


15 


18 


28 


38 


Whittier Street 


200 


185 


192 


193 


193 


Washington and Beach Sts. 


274 


3 


3 


3 


15 


Mission Hill Extension 


588 


501 


518 


531 


524 


Bromlev Park 


732 


196 


240 


302 


332 


Columbia Point 


1.504 


204 


285 


391 


451 


Marv E. McCorraack 


1.016 











10 


cjicl Colony 


0/ O 


u 








18 


Total 


io.i:)6 


1.9. SI 


2,261 


2,616 




Housing for the Elderly 












State Program 


No. of Units 


No. 


, of X:.n 


-JVhite Familii 






1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


Bickford 


64 


8 


8 


8 


6 


Jamaica Pond 


44 














Annapolis 


56 


1 


1 


1 


9 


Ashmont 


54 














Elm Hill 


86 


15 


14 


17 


liO 


Franklin Field 


160 


1 


2 


11 


13 


^Villiam J. Foley 


96 




1 


1 


9 


Washington 


82 








5 


Total 


642 


25 


26 


38 


48 



32 



BROCKTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State PRO(.R^M 

Roosevelt Heights 
Washburn Heights 

Total 

Federal Program 
Hill Street 

HOI'SINC. FOR THE ELDERLY 

Golden Circle 

Melvin Road 

North Wanen Ave. Ext, 

Blair and Earle Streets 



No. of Units 



No. of Non-White Families 



Total 



State Program 





1962 


1963 


1964 


1963 


124 


10 


9 


1 


16 


50 














174 


10 


9 


7 


16 


100 


8 


9 


15 


24 


46 











1 


64 








1 


1 


120 














100 











430 








1 


26 



CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1962 


1963 


1964 


1963 


Woodrow Wilson Court 


69 


3 


3 


4 


3 


Jefferson Park 


109 


9 


7 


6 


7 


Lincoln Way 


60 


2 


3 


4 


5 


Roosevelt Towers 


228 


22 


23 


25 


24 


Jackson Gardens 


46 





1 


1 


1 


Jefferson Park Extension 


200 


11 


11 


16 


17 


Total 


712 


47 


48 


56 


57 


Federal Program 












^Vashington Elms 


324 


39 


51 


56 


62 


Putnam Gardens 


123 


43 


44 


44 


45 


New Towne Court 


294 


16 


21 


23 


31 


Corcoran 


152 


5 


5 


4 


5 


John F. Kennedy Apartments 


88 






2 


3 


Total 


981 


103 


121 


129 


146 



State Program 



FALMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 



Amvets Avenue 
Federal Program 
Housing for the Elderly 

Salt Sea — Mayflower 



50 



54 



1962 
4 



1963 
2 



1964 
3 



1965 
3 



HOLYOKE HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 



Beaudoin Village 

Minnie R. Dwight Village 

Edwin A. Seibel Apartments 

Total 
Federal Program 
Jackson Parkway 
Lyman Terrace 
Henry Toepfert Apartments 

Total 



No. of Units 

219 
42 

40 



No. of Non-White Families 



301 

219 
167 

98 

484 



1962 
1 






16 
20 



1963 


1964 


1965 


4 


2 


10 




















4 


2 


10 


2 


2 


3 


16 


6 


6 


24 


32 


45 


42 


40 


54 



33 



HoLSINC FOR THE ELDERLY 



John J. Zeilinski Apartments 


64 














P. A. Coughlin Apartments 


55 














Beaudry Boucher Apartments 


31 


1 


1 


1 


1 


Total 


150 


1 




1 





XE\\' BEDFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Progr.\m 



No. of Units 



No. of Non-White Families 







1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


Parkdale 


100 


4 


4 


3 


5 


Blue Meadows 


150 


15 


15 


14 


14 


N ashmen t 


80 








1 


1 


Crestview-Westwood (Elderly) 


75 


1 


1 


1 


2 


Total 


405 


20 


20 


19 


22 


Feder-\l Program 












Bay Village 


200 


163 


163 


167 


171 


Presidential Heights 


200 


9 


9 


2 


3 


Brickenwood 


300 


17 


15 


15 


15 


Westlawii 


200 


47 


49 


51 


56 


Total 


900 


229 


229 


235 


245 



PITTSFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Progr.\m 



No. of Units 



No. of Non-White Families 



Wilson Park 

Francis Plaza (Elderly) 

Wahconah Heights (Elderly) 

Total 
Feder.\l Program 
Victory Hill 





1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


126 











2 


40 


1 


1 


1 




68 















234 



99 



1 3 
1 Demolished 



PLYMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Progr.\m No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1962 1963 1964 1965 

Olmstead Terrace and 

Standish Court 40 3 3 3 3 

Castle Hill (Elderly) 50 — 4 2 2 



Total 



State Progr.\m 



90 3 7 

SPRINGFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY 



No. of Units 



No. of Non- White Families 







1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


Reed Village 


200 


32 


3') 


61 


71 


Robison Gardens 


136 


12 


1 1 


17 


21 


Duggan Park 


196 


20 


21 


21 


16 


Carpe Diem (Elderly) 


75 


1 


1 








Harry P. Hogan (Apartments Elderly) 


32 


3 


1 








Forest Park Manor (Elderly) 


116 






3 


3 


Total 


755 


68 


69 


102 


111 


Fed£r.\l Program 












Riverview 


348 




34 


252 


211 


Riverview (Elderly) 


40 






4 


6 


Total 


388 




34 


256 


217 



34 



WORCESTF.R HOUSING AUTHORITY 



1 M 1 I'RdCRAM 


No. 


of Units 


No. of No7i- 


■White 


Fatnilit 








1962 


1963 


196-} 




Curtis Aj)armK'nt.s 




390 


6 


11 


9 


8 


Lakeside Apartments 




204 








1 





(ieorgc F. Booth Memorial 














\j)ai iiiu'iits 




75 


1 















TOIAI, 




669 


7 


11 


10 


8 


I Dl RAl PRCX.RAM 














Great Br(X)k Valley Gardens 




600 


17 


22 


23 


27 


Mavside Lane Apartments (Elderly) 


50 














Addison Streets Apartments 


(Elderly) 


50 













Mill Pond Lane Apartments 


(Elderly) 


74 













LorAL 




750 


17 


22 


23 


28 



ARLINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 
Stan I'roc.ram No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


Miiiotomv Manor 


176 


2 


2 


2 





Drake \'iilage (Elderly) 


72 














LorAi, 


248 


9 


2 


2 






BARNSTABLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 
Stan. Pkcx.ra.m No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1962 1963 1964 1965 
General Patton 40 12 11 13 14 



BROOKLINE HOUSING AUTHORITY 



Staii. Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


Egmont Street 


114 


4 


1 





2 


High Street 


177 


1 


2 





2 


Marion Street (Elderly) 


60 














1 orAL 


291 


5 


3 





4 



Fi 1)1 KAi. Program 

^Valnut Street 100 2 2 1 2 



CHELSEA HOUSING AUTHORITY 
Stati Pkoc.ram No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1962 1963 1964 1965 
346 1 

Fi DJ RAL PrOC RAM 

200 2 1 4 3 



EVERETT HOUSING AUTHORITY 



All; Program 


No. of Units 


No. 


of Non-White 


Familii 






1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


C;orbett Hill 


268 


17 


17 


17 


17 


Winthrop Road 


60 


2 


9 


2 


2 


Cherry Street 


64 


3 


3 


3 


3 


Golden Age Circle (Elderly) 


40 














Proctor Road (Elderly) 


120 


1 


1 


1 


1 


Total 


552 


23 


23 


23 


23 



35 



FRAMINGHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Progr.\m 



No. of Units 



Xo. of Non-White Families 







1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


Concord Street 


110 











1 


St. Lo Road 


75 














Arsenal Road 


80 








1 


1 


Oran Road 


25 














Everett Avenue 


40 














Total 


330 








1 


3 


FiDi RAL Program 












Beaver Street 


125 


2 


2 


1 


9 



Hot SING FOR THE ELDERLY 

Areenal Road 



25 



Demolished 



Si ATE PrOGR\M 



LAWRENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units 



No. of Non-White Families 







1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


Stadium Courts 


256 


6 


3 


o 


2 


Hancock Courts 


195 


25 


9 


12 


21 


Total 


43 1 


31 


12 


14 


23 


Fedi r\l Program 












Merrimack Courts 


292 


3 


o 


4 


5 


Beacon Courts 


208 


1 


4 


3 


8 


Total 


300 


4 


6 


7 


13 


HorsiN(, eor the Elderly 












Rev. James O Reilly 


83 














Rev. C. Bertrand Bower 


24 














Msgr. Edmond D. Dalv 


30 














Salem and Blanchard Streets 


160 












Union Street 


76 












Total 



373 



LOWELL HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Program 



No. of Units 



No. of Non-White Families 







1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


Gorham Street 


292 


1 


5 


5 


12 


Lakeview Avenue 


12 














Aiken Street 


20 














Concord Street 


16 














Hale Street 


15 














Total 


355 


1 


5 


5 


12 


I eoeral Program 












North C<;mmon Village 


536 




2 


2 


3 


Chelmsford Street 


165 














Bishop Markham Village 


372 


1 


6 


6 


9 


Total 


1,073 


2 


8 


8 


12 



36 



MALDEN HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Procr.\m 



Springdale Street 
Sylvan Street 
Roland Graham 
Veterans, Linden Street 
Sylvan Street (Elderly) 

Total 

Federal Program 
Bryant Street 



No. of Units 


No. 


of Non-White Familie 


1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


24 





1 


1 


3 


38 





2 


2 


9 


103 


1 







\ \ 


99ft 







4 


5 


141 











526 


1 


8 


18 


21 


250 


12 


3 


14 


11 



State Program 

Riverside Avenue 

Feder.\l Program 
Willis Avenue 



MEDFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY 

No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 



230 



150 



1962 
2 



1963 

3 



196-f 
1 



1963 
2 



REVERE HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 

1962 1963 1964 1965 
286 

Federal Program 

149 

Housing for the Elderly 

82 



SOMERVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Progr.\m 


No. of Units 


No. 


of N on- White 


Familie 






1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


Mystic River 


240 





2 








Clarendon Hill 


216 














Capon Court 


64 


9 


1 


1 


1 


Total 


520 


2 


3 


1 


1 


Feuer.\l Program 












Mystic View 


216 





1 


1 


2 


Highland Garden 


42 


2 











Prospect Hill Towers 


100 


2 


1 


1 


1 


TOTAI. 


358 


4 


9 


2 


3 



TAUNTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 
State Program No. of Units No. of Non-White Families 







1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


Riverside Apartments 


102 


13 


18 


15 


12 


Highland Heights 


40 


3 


3 


4 


5 


Total 


142 


16 


21 


19 


17 


ederal Program 












Fairfax Gardens 


150 


13 


14 


14 


15 


Hillcrest Terrace (Elderly) 


24 




1 


1 


1 


Total 


174 


13 


15 


15 


16 



37 

WATERTOWN HOUSING AUTHORITY 



State Progr.\m 




No. of Units 


No. 


of Non-White 


Families 








1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


West End 




168 














East End 




60 














Waverly Avenue 


(Elderly) 


40 














Total 




268 
















WEYMOUTH 


HOUSING AUTHORITY 












1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


State Program 




No. of Units 


No. 


of Non-White 


Families 


Memorial Drive 




208 


1 











Joseph Crehan (Elderly) 


80 











Total 




288 


1 













WINTHROP 


HOUSING AUTHORITY 






State Progr.\m 




No. of Units 


No. 


of Non-White 


Families 








1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


Edward Street 




73 














Viking Gardens 




30 









I) 


Total 




103 
















W OBURN HOUSING AUTHORITY 








State Program 




No. of Units 


No. 


of Non 


-White 


Families 








1962 


1963 


1964 


1965 


Creston Avenue 




68 











1 


Webster Avenue 




60 














Liberty Avenue 




48 














Warren Avenue 


(Elderlv) 


40 












Nichols Street (Elderly 


54 








1 


Total 




270 











2 


Federal Program 














Spring Court 




100 


I 


1 


i 


1 



SUMMARY OF THE STUDY OF THE EMPLOYMENT 
PROBLEMS OF THE OLDER WORKER MADE BY 
STAFF MEMBER THOMAS H. FREEMAN 

On August 1, 1950 the General Court enacted into law Chapter 697, "An Act Relative 
to Discrimination Against Employees and Persons Seeking Employment Between Forty- 
Five and Sixty-Fve Years of Age." Chapter 697 amend Chapter 15 IB of the General 
Laws, ■w'hich law is administered by the Commission Against Discrimination and is 
more commonly referred to as the Fair Practice Law. 

Fifteen years have passed since the enactment of Chapter 697. Since the enactment 
of the legislation to date, 2272 matters involving age discrimination have been proc- 
essed by the Commission, probable cause has been found in 1887 of the matters. 

A report relative to the employment problems of the older worker was prepared for 
the Commission by a staff member in July 1965. The report revealed that the age 
limits set by law, 45 to 65 years, quite evidently do not encompass a sufficient span. 
Many job applicants who are younger than 45 years of age are discriminated against 
because of their age and have no specific recourse under law. 

Statistics maintained by the Massachusetts Division of Employment Security revealed 
that for the five annual reporting periods from 1960 through 1964 the unemployed 
under 45 years of age always exceeded those 45 years of age and older except during 
the peak employment period of October those on the rolls over 45 years of age always 
exceeded those under 45 years of age. The peak employment period statistics indicate 
a continuing increase in this difference. Using 1960 as a base year, the number of 
persons 45 years of age and older on the rolls in excess of those under 45 years of age 
has increased every period and during the October 1964 reporting period was 648.8% 
greater than during the October 1960 reporting period. 




10 



NUMBER 45 AND OVER 
M.ORE THAN THOSE UNDEH 



o 



CO 



CM 
C5^ 



ro 

CO 
0> 



CO 



40 



The statistics of the Division of Employment Security although very revealing do 
not present a complete summary of the problem as many unemployed persons 45 years 
of age and older have exhausted benefits under unemployment compensation. 

The Manpower Report of the President, dated March 1965, contained the following 
statement, "Jobless workers over the age of 45 remain unemployed far longer than do 
\ounger persons; more than 35 percent of the jobless in the age group remain unem- 
ployed 15 weeks or more." 

The above statement and the statistics maintained by the Division of Employment 
Security take on added significance when it is considered that the preponderance of 
employees over 45 years of age are employed in positions from which they will ulti- 
mately retire. Most of the job shifting is done by a much younger group, almost 100% 
of those seeking their first job such as high school or college graduates are in a much 
younger group, yet in every instance during the peak employment period of October, 
the majority of those receiving or seeking to receive unemployment benefits were 45 
years of age or older. 

When unemployment compensation benefits are exhausted for the jobless person 
over 45 years of age, other means of support must be sought. Quite often the new 
means becomes public welfare. Five cities in the Commonwealth were reviewed in 
regard to General Relief recipients. 

The cateory of General Relief is the normal area to which the majority of such per- 
sons would gravitate, although others would be eligible for Aid to Dependent Children 
and Disability Assistance. Others would be eligible for Veterans Aid. 

Selecting the area of General Relief and the City of Boston as the key city, the fol- 
lowing information was revealed: 

Month— March 1965 

General Relief cases for the month — 2466 
Recipients 49 to 65 years— 1232* 

759 of the recipients over 49 years of age were male and 473 female. 229 males and 
143 of the females were considered employable but unable to obtain employment. 

Many state, county and municipal jobs have age limits often as young as 35 years. 
This often ser\'es to increase the difficulty confronting the Commission in the adminis- 
tration of the law. 

Reasons given for not hiring the older worker are many and varied, often related to 
myth or lack of knowledge and quite often the result of antedated company policy. 

An outstanding example of myth and lack of knowledge is the belief that the older 
worker is the cause of most industrial accidents and hence responsible for higher rates. 

The records of the Industrial Accident Board for the period January 1, 1961 to 
December 1, 1961 reveal a total of 55,721 industrial accidents or 2.67 industrial accidents 
per 100 w^orkers. Employees under 45 years of age had accidents at the rate of 2.94 
per 100, 45 to 65 years of age had accidents at the rate of 2.42 per hundred. The fol- 
lowing year January 1, 1962 to December 31, 1962 there was a total of 56,446 industrial 
accidents. Employees under 45 years of age were responsible for 35,934. Employees 
45 to 65 years of age were responsible for 19,183, over 65 years of age for 1320. The 
ratio for 1962 reflected consistency. 

In order to ascertain the employers viewpoint 14 major companies throughout the 
Commonwealth were contacted and persons directly connected with employment and 
personnel relations were interviewed. The companies selected employed a total of 
23,463 persons and were located in every major employment area of the Commonwealth. 

The results of the compilation of information obtained proved extremely interesting 
and contributed much toward the dissolution of many unfounded beliefs and theories 
regarding the older worker. 

In answer to a series of questions pertaining to problems encountered by companies 
hiring older workers the following summation was obtained: 

a. Effect on pension plan was negligible. 

b. Effect on insurance plan was negligible. 

c. Effect on fringe benefits: 



41 



13 companies reported no" effect" 
1 company an employer of less than 325 reported "substantial effect." 
In answer to questions pertaining to company experience regarding employees over 
45 years of age the following information was obtained: 

Above Average Average Below Average 
Employee Employee Employee 

a. Attendance 10 4 

b. Tardiness 10 4 

c. Sick Leave 5 6 3 

d. Production 7 7 

e. Attitude 8 6 

Each company was requested to submit the ages of its ten best employees by company 
standards. 140 employees ages were submitted. The average age of the best employee 
was 51.3. years. 

Discrimination against the older job seeker in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
does exist. 



*1232 includes only those over 49 years of age but under 65 years of age. According to 
the authorities a large number of the balance was between 45 and 49 years of age. 

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination originally established in 1946 
as the Fair Employment Practice Commission was assigned the duty of administering 
the Age Amendment Chapter 697 on November 1, 1950. Of 5606 matters before the 
Commission from 1946 to December 31, 1965, 2272 or more than 40% related to age 
discrimination. 

It is evident that affirmative action is needed in the area of age discrimination. The 
Commission, fully cognizant of the problem has submitted the following recommenda- 
tions to the Governor: 

1. A division be established within the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimi- 
nation for the purpose of administering all laws pertaining to age discrimination within 
the Commonwealth. 

2. A director be named to the division and authorized to direct the enforcement, 
educational and informational phases of the division. 

3. The existing lower age limit of 45 years be eliminated or substantially reduced to 
include large numbers of persons who are victims of "age" discrimination but who, 
because of present restrictive limits, are "too young" to seek redress through a specific 
complaint. 

4. The age factor be added to the Governor's Plans for Progress Program. 

5. Chapter 367, § 24A, through 24J, Acts of 1937 as amending Chapter 149 of the 
General Laws be assigned to the Age Division for administration and enforcement. 

6. Laws governing state employment be reviewed relative to conformity with Chap- 
ter 151B, General Laws. 

7. Civil Service Rules be reviewed relative to age restrictions placed on various occu- 
pations in particular. 

Rule 6, Paragraph 1, classes 13a, b and c; 14; 15; 16; 19; 20; and 21 which place age 
limitations from thirty-five to fifty years on certain positions. 

Paragraph 2 of Rule 6 authorizes the Director of Civil Service to fix age limits on 
any class not mentioned unless otherwise fixed by law. Paragraph 2 is not consistent 
with Chapter 151B of the General Laws. 

8. An education and information program be instituted immediately by the Division 
to enlist the aid of employers in the Commonwealth in order to eliminate common 
myths and obtain employer cooperation. 

9. The Governor call a conference of newspaper publishers, classified advertising 
managers and employment agencies for the purpose of outlining the problem and ob- 
taining cooperation in the elimination of discriminatory advertising and job orders. 

10. At the request of the Governor an advisory council of business and industry 
leaders be established in order to obtain advice and cooperation in the elimination of 
the problem. 

11. The MCAD must have the authority to issue all bona fide exemptions under the 
statute. 

12. Liaison be established with the Division of Employment Security, for the purpose 
of establishing a uniform affirmative action program. 



42 



NON-AGRICULTURAL PLACEMENTS BY SELECTED MONTH, 



(/) 

Q 
Z 
< 
if) 

o 

X 




i 



TOTAL 



D 



OVER 45 



1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 



43 



INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS - 1961 1962 



60 



fZl UNDER 45 YRS ■ OVER 65 YRS 
45 TO 65 YRS ^ TOTAL 



54 



48 



42 



30- 
24- 
18- 
12- 



6 




m 

■■■V 

■ ■ 

■ ■ I 

■ - 

■ ■ 

■ ■ I 

■ ■ 

■ ■ I 

■ ■ 

■ ■ I 

■ ■ 

■ ■ ■ 



196! 



■ 1 



1962 



44 



EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CONFERENCE 

The Commission as a to-sponsor with Snelling and Snelling of a program on equal 
employment opportunities held at the Statler Hilton Hotel in Boston, October 29, 
1965, hosted employers and employer representatives from all of New England repre- 
senting one and a half million employees at an all day program and workshop geared 
to provide information which would encourage employers not only to comply with the 
law but also to take affirmative action for the purpose of bringing about greater and 
more rapid elimination of discrimination in employment especially with regard to the 
non-white worker. The main speaker at this program was Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt, 
Jr., Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The project proved 
to be constructive and valuable. It also provided for those attending an opportunity 
to have the federal Civil Rights Law defined and explained by those officials who will 
be administering it. 

COMMUNITY RELATIONS DIVISION 

As a result of favorable legislative action in 1964, a Community Relations Division 
was established. January 8, 1965, with the appointment of a Community Relations 
Supervisor. Although the division functioned as a one man operation, an intensive 
program was outlined. 

Working under the handicap of limited and inept funding the division found itself 
obligated to devote its time to projects upon the basis of immediate urgency rather 
than planned program and short and long range objectives. 

Upon its inception the division launched into a program involving numerous con- 
ferences with civil rights groups and organizations for the purpose of obtaining under- 
standing, clarification and agreement with regard to pending civil rights legislation. 

The year was spent directing the efforts of the division to increasing the participation 
and activities of the advisory and regional councils; composing thirty-five news re- 
leases; preparing a substantial portion of the commission correspondence and super- 
vising its posting; making five radio broadcasts; participating in one hundred fifty-nine 
meetings; addressing nineteen groups; preparing a newsletter; and locating and setting 
up the commission Tel-A-Story machine in four locations, for periods of one to four 
weeks. The Tel-A-Story machine is a visual aid machine which explains the law and 
the rights of persons within the commonwealth. 

COUNCIL ACTIVITIES 

A concerted efEort was made this year to provide inspiration and incentive to the 
regional and advisory councils which were described by some of the civil rights groups 
as sedentary and failing to provide the community leadership and influence in civil 
rights of which they are capable. In encouragement of greater activity and the pro- 
moting of programs formulated to assist in eliminating or correcting problems per- 
tinent to civil rights peculiar to a particular geographic location the Commission sought 
to obtain more regular and consistent participation by all council membership; to 
instill a feeling of belonging and achievement by the formation of plans and commit- 
tees to execute the plans in the form of projects and to provide additional autonomy 
to the councils so that they will develop a feeling of cohesion and unity. 

For the first time the Commission held a conference of the chairmen of all councils. 
Activities and contemplated projects were discussed. Problems confronting the areas 
represented by the councils were reviewed. The chairmen unanimously adopted the 
following: 

That such conferences be held semi-annually; 

That the councils combine to have at least one master project annually in which all 
councils will participate; and 

That the first project be one of self-education to council membership so that it can 
better present its position and the reasons therefor to the commimity. 

The New Bedford Council has been conducting an active and energetic program in 
housing and employment. Surveys have been made in both areas to determine the type 
of action needed to correct inequities and acts of discrimination. 



45 



The North Shore Council has been developing and promoting projects in education 
and employment which will be planned and developed to aid those portions of the 
community most in need and especially the non-white portion. 

The Cape Cod Council adoped a program directed toward providing information 
and specialized training relative to educational and employment opportunities for non- 
whites for vocational guidance teachers. 

The Berkshire Council engaged in projects involving guidance to the local youth with 
reference to education and training for available employment opportunities, housing 
but more particularly the relocation aspect of housing, and injecting stimulus into the 
adult education program. 

COMMISSION ADVISORY AND REGIONAL COUNCILS— 1965 

In accordance with statutory provision the Commission has over the years created 
advisory and regional councils in various sections of the Commonwealth to aid in ef- 
fectuating the purposes of the Law. These councils are composed of civic-spirited in- 
dividuals, who have given their time and efiforts to implementing the Commission in 
its administration of the law. Through their concerted and community efforts these 
persons have promoted good-will and solicited the cooperation of all the citizens of 
the Commonwealth. 

The following is a list of the councils and their members: 
State Advisory Council 

John J. Desmond, Jr., Chairman, Draper-Sears & Company 
Rt. Rev. Robert P. Barry, LL.D., St. Clement's Church 

Clarence Q. Berger, Dean of University Planning and Development, Brandeis 
University 

Rabbi Roland B. Gitttelsohn, Temple Israel of Boston 

Dr. Owen B. Kiernan, Commissioner of Education, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Richard E. Kriebel, Secretary, Polaroid Corp. 
Henry M. Leen, Attorney 

Mildred H. Mahoney, former Chairman, Commission Against Discrimination 
Paul Parks, Chairman, NAACP Education Committee 
Dr. Charles A. Pinderhughes, M.D. 

Rt. Rev. Anson P. Stokes, Bishop, Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts 
Benjamin A. Trustman, Esq. 
Regional Council Membership 

Advisory Council on Housing 
Robert E. Segal, Chairman; Executive Director, Jewish Community Council 
Edward J. Barshak, Esq. 
Dr. Joseph Barth, Kings Chapel House 

Gerald A. Berlin, member Executive Committee American Jewish Congress 
Millicent Carpenter, Chairman, CORE 

Mrs. Melnea A. Case, member Executive Board, Boston Branch NAACP 
George A. Coleman, Coleman & Sons, Director Greater Boston Real Estate Board 
Dr. Thomas J. Curtin, Deputy Commissioner of Education, Mass. Dept. of Edu- 
cation 

Bertram A. Druker, partner in the firm of John Druker and Son 

Mrs. Ellen Feingold, member Mass. Committee on Discrimination in Housing, 

Delegate ADA 
Ralph Fenton, Factory Mutual Insurance Company 
Thomas Francis, Committee for Civic Unity 

Maurice E. Frye, Jr., Street & Co., Inc., Vice President Greater Boston Real Es- 
tate Board 
Marvin E. Gilmore, Jr., Realtor 
Reuben Goodman, Attorney 

Robert Gustafson, Community Relations Director — American Friends Service Com- 
mittee 
Alfred W. Halper 



46 



Baii\ D. Hoffman. Pilgrim Management Corp. 

Ray Hofforci. Executive \'ice President Greater Boston Real Estate Board and 

Mass. Association of Real Estate Boards 
M. Jacob Joslow. Executive Director, American Jewish Congress 
Mi's. Elizabeth Keil, Massachusetts Federation for Fair Housing and Equal Rights 
Mrs. Helen Kistin. Economic Consultant and Chairman Housing Advisory Re- 
search Committee 

Sol Kolack. Executive Director, New England Office Anti-Defamation League 
B'nai B'rith 

Rabbi Samuel I. KorfT, Rabbinical Court of the Associated Synagogues 
Lee H. Kozol 

John W. Kunhardt. Vice President, Hunneman 8c Co., Inc. 
Morris Kritzman, Cambridge Redevelopment Authority 
Jerry Levin, Regent Homes 

Rev. Thomas E. MacLeod, St. Bridgid's Church, Lexington 

Luther Knight Macnair, Executive Secretary, Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts 

Robert McPeck, Executive Vice President, Home Builders Association 

J. ^Vestbrook McPherson, Executive Director, Urban League of Greater Boston, Inc. 

Edward C. Mendler, Jr., member Board of Trustees, Fair Housing, Inc. 

Malcolm E. Peabody, Jr., Inter-Faith Housing Corp. 

Philip Perlmutter, Director, N. E. Region American Jewish Committee 

Robert A. Pihlcrantz, C. W. Whittier & Bro. 

Myron C. Roberts, Roberts Bros. 

L. Robert Rolde, life member of the Board of Directors of the National Home 

Builders Association 
Mrs. Saddle Sacks, Fair Housing, Inc. 
Professor Albert M. Sacks, Harvard Law School 
Rev. Tex Sample, Massachusetts Council of Churches 
Milton H. Shaw, Wayside Realtors 

Walter Smart, Acting Deputy Project Director, Boston Redevelopment Authority 

Robert F. Smith, Braemar Homes, Inc. 

Mrs. Muriel Snowden, Co-Director, Freedom House Inc. 

A. J. Tambone, President A. J. Tambone, Inc. Realtors 

Mrs. George S. Tattan, Supervisor of Social Service, Div. of Immigration and 
Americanization 

Walter K. Winchester, Vice President, First Realty Company of Boston 
^Villiam J. White, White-Bison & Co., Inc. 

Berkshire County 

Nelson F. Hine, Chairman 

Bruno Aron, Proprietor, Sunnybank, Lenox 

DorLs Bardon, High Point Galleries, Lenox 

Samuel E. Bloomberg, Attorney 

Dr. James M. Burns, Williams College 

Lincoln S. Cain, Attorney 

Rev. Joseph P. Cashin, Executive Director, Catholic Youth Center 
Bruce Crane, President, Crane & Company 
Dennis J. Duffin 

John V. Geary, Executive Director, Berkshire Hills Conference 
David L. Gunn, Berkshire County Branch, NAACP 
Albert F. Litano, Local 225, lUE-CIO 

Lincoln D. Lynch, Supt. Elementary Education, Pittsfield School Department 
Hans K. Maedor, Director, The Stockbridge School, Interlaken 
Erail Metropole, Realtor 
Feland A. Nevers, D.D.S. 

William J. Nolan, Sprague Electric Company 
Arthur B. Phinney, Unitarian Church, Pittsfield 
Miss L. Alberta Pierce, NAACP 
Mrs. Henry N. Rollison, NAACP 



47 



Jay C. Rosenfeld 
Samuel Sass 

Rabbi Sanford D. Shanblatt, Congregation Knesses Israel 
Hon. Paul A. Tamburello, United States Commissioner 
Frank T. Walker, NAACP 
Lafayette W. Walker, NAACP 

Boston Council 

Carl J. Gilbert, Chairman; The Gillette Company, Chairman of the Board 
Julius Bernstein, Executive Secretary, Mass. AFL-CIO Civil Rights Committee 
Frederic C. Church, Boit, Dalton and Church 

John V. Connolly, Business Manager, Boston Photo Engravers' Union No. 3 
Hubert L. Connor, Director of Apprenticeship, Div. of Apprentice Training, Dept. 

of Labor and Industries 
Harold R. Dann, New England Telephone & Telegraph 
Xorris G. Davis, Funeral Director 

John E. Deady, Secretary-Treasurer Building & Construction Trades Council 
Svilliam H. Eastman. Second Vice President. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance 
Co. 

Stephen W. Fardy, Executive Secretary, Boston Allied Printing Trades Council 

Kenneth Guscott, President, Boston Branch NAACP 

Ernest A. Johnson, Vice President, Mass. Building Congress 

C. K. Neilson, Vice President, New England Telephone and Telegraph Co. 

Thomas A. Pappas. President, C. Pappas Company. Inc. 

Leonard T. Peters, Executive Vice President. Peters Employment Service, Inc. 
Sidney R. Rabb, Chairman of the Board, Stop and Shop, Inc. 
Paul T. Rothwell, Chairman of the Board. Bav State Milling Company 
Arthur Seserman, Executive Vice President, Boston Branch National Metal Trades 
.Assoc. 

John S. Sullivan, Vice President, National Shawmut Bank 
Frank F. Vorenberg, President, Gilchrist Company 

Leslie E. Woods, Labor Relations Advisor and Consultant, Raytheon Company 
Allan Ralph Zenowitz, Management Consultant 

Cape Cod Council 

Harold H. Williams, Chairman 
Mrs. Judith M. Barnet 
Hon. James T, Bento 

Hai-\ard H. Broadbent, Superintendent of Schools 
Bradford E. Brown 

Anthony Casella, Chairman Yarmouth School Committee 
Moncrieff M. Cochran, Sea Pines School, Brewster 
Norman H. Cook, Executive Secretai^ 

Charles A. Coyie, Executive Secretary, Mass. Hotel Association 
Miss Eugenia Fortes 

Mrs. Roma H. Freeman, Phvsical Education and Science Teacher, Barnstable Jr. 

High 
Joseph Gomes 
Arthur C. Goode 
Jack Gravier 

Harold L. Hayes, Jr., Attorney 

John T. Hough, Falmouth Publishing Company 

Mrs. John T. Hough 

Joseph Indio, Nantucket Town Crier 

Charles W. Jacoby, President, Cape Cod Board of Realtors 
Senator Allan F. Jones 

James H. Kennedy, Manager, Mass. Division of Employment Security 
John C. Linehan. Principal, Barnstable Junior High School 
Thomas McKeon, Executive Secretary, Hyannis Board of Trade 



48 



Hain^ S. Merson, Superintendent of Schools, Falmouth 
Mrs. Harry S. Merson 

Ben Morton, Secretary, Chamber of Commerce 

Norman Nunes, Supervisor, Hood Milk Company 

Mrs. Lillian Olsen. Treasurer, Hyannis Cooperative Bank 

Mrs. John Pena 

John Pena, Contractor 

Howard Penn 

Elvira Perry 

Rabbi Jerome Pine 

Thomas Roderick 

John Rosario 

Rev. Carl Fearing Schultz, DD, Minister Federated Church of Hyannis 

Miss Mary G. Shea 

Frank Simmons, Sr. 

Mrs. Lewis Paul Todd 

Mrs. Helen M, Webster, Realtor 

Rabbi Ronald Weiss, Cape Cod Synagogue 

Mrs. Minna Witt 

New Bedford Council 

Lloyd Miller, Chairman 

Rev. John L. Aalfs, First Presbyterian Church 
Mrs. Valentina N. Almeida 
Mrs. Mary Andrade 

Joseph Baldwin, Division of Employment Security 
Howard Baptista 

Judge Samuel Barnet, Special Justice, Third District Court 
Henry A. Bartkiewicz, Attorney 
Otis Branch 

Mrs. Rosalind Poll Brooker, Attorney 

James M. Buckley, Director, Adult Education, New Bedford School Department 
Mrs. Mabel E. Burrows 

John R. Campbell, Manager of Business Office, New England Telephone &: Tele- 
graph Co. 

George E. Carignan, International Representative Textile Workers' Union of 

America, AFL-CIO 
Earl Carter 
Gregory P. Centeio 

Edward Coury, Representative 7th Bristol District 
Joaquim A. Custodio 
Mrs. Erma DeBoer 

Duncan A. Dottin, President, New Bedford NAACP 

Mrs. Barbara Dubin, On board 

Arnold M. Dubin 

Harry R. Dunham 

Dr. Henry R. Groebe 

Ronald Harper 

Miss Mary Healy, Director, On board 

Mrs. W^illiam S. Holmes, Jr. 

Harold Hurwitz, Attorney 

Rev. Richard Kellaway 

Gerald Klein 

Mrs. Sylvia Knowles 

Hyman Krivoff 

Jack Levine, Attorney 

Edwin Livramento 

Mrs. Edwin Livramento 

Arthur Leitao 



49 



Mrs. Betsy McBratney 
Miss Ruth B. McFadden 
Frank C. Monteiro 
Frank Murphy 
David M. Narva 

Joao R. Rocha, Publisher, Portuguese Daily News 

Marshall Sawyer 

Dr. Consuelo M. Souza 

Fermino J. Spencer 

Mrs. Dorothy Stahre 

Isaac Steiner 

Joseph A. Sylvia, Jr., Register of Deeds 

Alfred R. Thackeray, Executive Secretary, New Bedford Chamber of Commerce 
Mrs. Xenophon Thomas 

Philip F. Tripp, Executive Director, New Bedford Housing Authority 

Joseph S. Vera, Attorney 

Guy Volterra, Attorney NAACP 

Mrs. Lenora Whyte 

William Joseph Winsper, III, Asst. Director of Guidance &: Placement, New Bed- 
ford High 
Mrs. William Wood 
Gloria Xifaris 

John Xifaris. Attorney NAACP 

Rabbi Bernard H. Ziskind, Tifereth Israel Synagogue 
North Shore Council 

John M. Lilly, Chairman 

Alfred A. Albert. Royal Albert Realty 

Anthonv Athanas. President, Hawthorne Restaurants, Inc. 

Samuel P. Backman, Realtor 

Mrs. Mary F. Berlyn, Supervisor, Adult Civic Education, Lynn Public Schools 

Louis L. Brin, Editorial Staff, "Jewish Advocate" 

O. Robert Coe, Manager of Employment, General Electric Co. 

Charles Cronis, Attorney 

Rev. Earl Eldridge, Lynn Council of Churches 

Mrs. Solomon M. Feldman 

Mrs. Conover Fitch, Jr. 

Peter Gamage, Publisher, Lynn Item 

Abraham Glovsky, Attorney 

Dr. Francis L. Keane, School Adjustment Counselor, Lynn Public Schools 
Mrs. Prescott Kettell 

Henry Kozlowski, Treasurer, Jackson & Phillips, Inc. 

Robert G. Livingston, Manager, Nissen Baking Corp. 

Herbert D. Marsh, President, Security Trust Company 

Lawrence G. McGinn, Superintendent of Schools, Lynn School Department 

Mrs. Marcia L. Memmott, Director, Women's Division, Mass. Dept. of Commerce 

Joseph M. Moseson, Executive, Jewish Community Center 

Mrs. William H. Nesbit, Librarian, "Lynn Item" 

Theodore Regnante, Chairman, Board of Trustees, Lynn Public Library 
Armand J. St. Laurent. Funeral Director 
Malcolm Stone, Boston Machine Works 

John W. Tisdell, Manager, New England Telephone Company 
Dr. William D. Washington 
William A. Welch 

Springfield Council 

Mrs. Richard B. Anderson 
Oscar Bright, CORE 

Archie Burak, Treasurer, Industrial Building Corp. 



50 



Rev. Charles E. Cobb, St. John's Congregational Church 
J. Douglas Cummings. Attorney 

Miss Clarace K. Gait. Head Psychiatric Social Worker, Child Guidance Clinic of 
Springfield 

Chester \. Gibbs. I rbaii League of Springfield 
Mrs. Muriel A. Griffin, Council of Civic Association Presidents 
Alice Halligan, Executive Secretary, Springfield Adult Education Council 
Professor Jacke C. Harris. Director of the Community Tensions Center, Springfield 
College 

Mrs. Eugene Hodges, Realtor 

Miss Olive K. Horrigan, Retired Director of Adult Education, Springfield School 
Dept. 

Raymond T. King, Attorney 
Roijert G. Little 

Bernard H. McMahon. President, Springfield Five Cents Savings Bank 

Rev. Vincent M. O'Connor, Catholic Social Service Bureau 

Mrs. Roger L. Putnam, President, Catholic Scholarships for Negroes, Inc. 

Frederick B. Robinson, Director, Springfield Museum of Fine Arts 

James J. Shea, President, Milton Bradley Company 

Charles Vivenzio, Financial Secretary, Local 202 AFL-CIO 

Mrs. Malcolm C. Webber 

Worcester 

Andrew li. Holmstroni, Chairman 

John Barone, Commonwealth Service Corps 

Joan Bott, YMCA 

Rev. John Burke. St. Peters Church 

Rev. Hubert C. Callaghan, S.J., Director, The Institute of Industrial Relations 
Elizabeth Campbell, Executive Director, YWCA 

Daniel J. Casale, District Superintendent, Mass. Division of Employment Security 
Frederick E. Coe, Norton Company 

Jerome Collins, President, Massachusetts Merchants, Inc. 
Mrs. Ruth Collins 

Rev. Toussaint L. Davis, Baptist Church 

Donald S. Donnelly, Chief Supervisor, Mass. Division of Employment Security 
Clayton T. Drown 
Joseph Eid 

Mrs. Katherine Erskine 
Mrs. Daniel Farber 

Judge Joseph Goldberg, Central District Court, Worcester 
Dr. John J. Goldsberry 
Rev. L. M. Hamby 

Frank E. Hayes, Director, Civil Service Commission 

Dr. Ralph L. Holland, Executive Secretary, Worcester Area Council of Churches 

John B. Howarth, Postmaster, U. S. Post Office 

Mrs. Fred Jackson, President, Worcester Branch, NAACP 

Mrs. Arthur Jarrett, CORE 

Dr. Howard B. JefEerson, President, Clark University 
Rabbi Joseph Klein, Temple Emmanuel 
James B. Lavin 

John S. Laws, Principal, Dix School 

Miss Anna Mays, Life Member NAACP, Past Education Chairman, N. E. Regional 

Conference NAACP 
Mrs. Carolyn McMillan 
Mrs. Harriet Miller 

Philip Morgan, President, Morgan Construction Company 
Mrs. Stanley W. Norwood, Bancroft School 

Walter A. Olson, Ex. Director, Family Service Organization of Worcester 
Matthew P. O'Regan, President, Worcester Real Estate Board 
Harry W. Oswell, NAACP 



51 



Edsoii D. Phelps, \ itc President Slate Mutual Lite Assurance Company 
Mrs. Richard B. Roberts 

Mrs. Dorothy L. Salter, President, Salter Secretarial Sdiool 

Luther C. Small, Executive Director, Worcester Housing Authority 

Mrs. George E. Spence 

Roy H. Stevens, Jr., Director, United Steel workers of .America, AIL-CIO 

L. I. St. Martin, Executive Vice President, Master Home Builders Association of 

Worcester County 
Rev. John H. Stringfield, AME Zion Church 
David Todd 

Rev. Gordon M. Torgersen 
Dr. Joseph Weinreb 

Risi ARCH .\dmsorv Coi ncil 

Prof. Leonard Fein. Chaimian Research Advisory Council, Depaitmcni of Political 

Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
Prof. Kenneth Benne, Human Relations Center, Boston University 
Prof. Robert Chin. Department of Psychologv and Human Relations Center. Boston 

University 

Dean Gerhart "Wiebe. School of Public Communications. Boston University 
Sister Marie .\ugus:a Xeal, SND, Department of Sociology. Emmanuel College 
Prof. AVilliam Angell, School of Education, Boston University and Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology 
l*rof. Frederick Frey. Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology 

Prof. Ithiel DeSola Pool, Department of Political Science. Massachusetts InstitiUe 
of Technology 

Prof. Bradburv Seasholes, Lincoln Filene Center for Citizenship and Public Affairs, 
Tufts University 

Prof. Bernard Harleston, Department of Psychology, Tufts University 
Dr. Florence Shelton. Research Assistant, Graduate School of Education, Hanard 
University 

Prof. Z\i Sobel. Department of Sociology, Brandeis University 

Prof. Joseph Hozid, Department of Sociology, Simmons College 

Mrs. Katherine Clark. Assistant to the Director, Joint Center for Urban Studies of 

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University 
Dr. Clarence Sherwood, Research Director, Action for Boston Community Devel- 
opment. Inc. 

Mr. Wendell MacDonald, Director, New England Regional Office, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics 

Mr. Paul Mulkern, Assistant Regional Director, Bureau of Labor Statistics 
Miss Elinor Rowe. Research Director, Massachusetts Division of Employment Se- 
curity 

Mr. Thomas Sullivan, Coordinator, Mayor's Citizens Advisory Committee on Com- 
munity Development, Boston Redevelopment Authority 

Prof. John Donovan, Department of Sociology, Boston College (on sabbatical 1965- 
1966) 

Prof. Morton Rubin, Department of Sociology, Northeastern University (on sab- 
batical 1965-1966) 
George Korb, M.A., Sociology, Fordham University 
Mrs. Barry Coltin, A.B., University of Michigan 
Mrs. Orrin Levin, A.B., Radcliffe College 
Mrs. Nicholas Averv', Mt. Holyoke College 



Public Document No. 163 

Elit (Hmmstmmliif at JMaaflarlptBFtta 

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 

ANNUAL REPORT 

of the 

MASSACHUSETTS . COMMISSION 
* AGAINST DISCRIMINATION. 

January I, 1966 to December 31 ^ 1966 




i'7 

/ 41 Tremont Street 1570 Main Street 

Boston, Massachusetts Springfield, Massachusetts 

Masonic Building 
558 Pleasant Street 



New Bedford, Massachusetts 



Publication or this Document Approved by Alpked C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent 
6M-6-67-945384 Estimated Cost Per Copy: f.26 



EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 



MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION 
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION 

wenty- First Annual Repor 



COMMISSION MEMBERS 

Malcolm C. AVebber — Chairman 
John F. Albano — Commissioner 
Erna Ballantine — Commissioner 
Ben G. Shapiro — Commissioner 

Walter H. Nolan — Executive Secretary 

DIVISIONS 

Thomas H. Freeman — Director of Research 
Oswald L, Jordan — Director of Community Relations 



mTEUBMirQFMISttaREnf 

Q(f|Ng'ENTS i 

LETTER OF TRANSMBWIf HOUSE, BOSDOM * j ' ' ' • ^ 

POLICY STATEMENT I . . . . 4 

\ 

INTRODUCTION > .... 4 

MASS. off: 

STAFF 5 

SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTIVITIES 5 

COMPLIANCE THROUGH COMPLAINTS 6 

COMPLAINT HISTORIES 7 

PUBLIC HEARINGS .10 

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM 43 

LEGISLATION 43 

ENACTED 43 

PROPOSED 44 

FAIR EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES 44 

BONA FIDE OCCUPATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 45 

COMMUNITY RELATIONS DIVISION 54 

RESEARCH DIVISION 55 

OPINION SURVEY— MCAD 55 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY 56 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 57 

PUBLIC HOUSING SURVEY STATISTICS 64 

COUNCIL ACTIVITIES 73 

LIST OF COUNCILS 73 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 79 

FINANCIAL STATEMENT 80 

FUTURE PLANS 80 




chairman 
Malcolm c. Webber 

commissioners 
John f. albano 
Erna Ballantine 
Ben G. Shapiro 



S^aainU Q)c^crimirt alien 



%'-eel, S^oiton 02^08 



■XECUTIVE SECRETARY 

WALTER H. Nolan 



His Excellency, John A. Volpe, Governor 
Honorable Members, General Court of Massachusetts 
Sirs: 

On behalf of the entire Commission it is my pleasure to submit the twenty-first An- 
nual Report covering the period from January 1, 1966 through December 31, 1966. 

This year saw a continuation of the trend to an increased caseload which has been 
apparent since 1963. A detailed study of this caseload reveals a decline only in the 
employment cases based on race, and color. The decline was anticipated and it is the 
belief of the Commission that full employment within the Commonwealth, the lessen- 
ing of employment discrimination based on color or race, and the affirmative efforts on 
the part of the largest Massachusetts employers, are the basic reasons for this decline. 

The private housing complaints again increased, but the most significant element 
in the increase ^sas that in 1965 almost 50% of the complaints filed was with the aid 
of and through the encouragement of one organization. In 1966 the same organization 
sent the Commission 22% of its housing cases, which indicates a greater public aware- 
ness of Commisj;ion services, abilities and facilities. 

The opening of a new branch office at 18 South Water Street, New Bedford has 
made more accessible the ser\'ices of the Commission to the residents of Southeastern 
Massachusetts. It has also encouraged the citizens of this area to take advantage 
of the Commission facilities toward promoting equality for all. 

Despite the support of the Governor and many members of the General Court, the 
Commission continues to be greatly handicapped by an inadequate budget. The in- 
creased caseload, plus an affirmative action program, urgently requires additional funds 
with which to properly carry forward the work of the Commission. Funds were granted 
for personnel in New Bedford, but no allocations were made for rent, equipment, and 
all the other normal operating expenses connected with an office operation. All other 
increases were denied. The Commission is once again requesting the funds vitally 
necesssary to properly implement the letter and spirit of the Fair Practices Legislation. 

Appreciation is expressed to the many individuals and groups within the Common- 
wealth who have cooperated with the Commission in its law enforcement and affirma- 
tive action programs. Without their cooperation and understanding the task would 
have been much more difficult. 

Recognition is given to the staff of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrim- 
ination for its dedication in these times of great change. 
With every good wish I remain. 

Sincerely, 



MALCOLM C. WEBBER 
Chairman 



4 



POLICY STATEMENT 

Aggressive affirmative action is a corollary and necessary ingredient to corrective 
action in the elimination of vestiges of discrimination in an ever and rapidly changing 
society. 

This Commission realizes the importance of exercising strong affirmative action in 
order to achieve racial equality beyond that accomplished by means of the conference, 
conciliation and persuasion of complaints. 

The Commission is convinced that constructive social change can be directed and con- 
ditioned through the democratic process and tensions inherent in social change can be 
utilized as assets. Positive, ingenious, affirmative action by the leadership of business, 
labor, public education, social agencies — all the institutions of our communities and 
go\ernment are necessary to procure this constructive social change. 

.All efforts of the Commission are directed to improving the handling of complaints, 
intensifying its endeavors in affirmative action, providing leadership, encouragement, 
and expert advice and assistance to any efforts in the direction of eradicating discrim- 
ination. 

INTRODUCTION 

The year 1966 has seen a continued expansion of the important role which the 
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination has played and must continue to 
play. 

The constant increase in the caseload of the Commission, is a tribute to the efficiency 
and value of its existence. This increase is believed to be a vote of confidence by the 
citizens of the Commonwealth who have shown a growing awareness that the Commis- 
sion is a reality; to serve justly all who need its help. 

In 1963, the Commission handled 339 matters and in 1966, 706, — a new peak. Of this 
number only 78 employment cases based on race or color were filed. The decline was 
gratifying and expected in light of present day employment conditions. 

The Commission feels it has made a positive contribution in the reduction of discrim- 
ination throughout the Commonwealth, but wishes to recognize the existence of a tight- 
ened labor market and the efforts of enlightened employers, who have adopted a policy 
of hiring on merit, as significant elements influencing the decline referred to above. 

However, as a result of amendments to the law, age and sex complaints ha\e made 
for an increase in the employment caseload. 

Private housing continues to be an extremely important facet of the Commission work 
as is shown by a rise in caseload over that for 1965. The inter-relationship of housing 
discrimination and employment possibilities is becoming ever clearer. The rapid move- 
ment of industry to the suburbs makes all the more necessary the elimination of housing 
discrimination. If the non-white citizens of the Commonwealth are to achieve full equal- 
ity all artificial barriers to employment must be removed. No benefits can be derived 
from the elimination of discrimination in employment, IF housing discriminaiion exists 
in the locations in which jobs are to be found. 

The increase in the overall caseload has resulted in a rapid climb of open cases. 

Due to the dispatch with which housing matters are handled the Commission has 
managed to sray current in this area, bu: the backlog in all other areas is continually 
increasing. Unless budgetary problems are met the operation of this agency must in- 
evitably be curtailed, with the resulting lack of service to those persons who are discrim- 
inated against, and seeking recourse through the Commission. 

With the aid of federal funds, a study of the transportation industry was conducted 
by the Commission. This study disclosed an employment area in which there is need 
for improvement to bring about equal employment opportunities. The Commission is 
seeking additional federal funds to initiate and implement a program w^hich will 
attempt to achieve an integrated work force within this important industry. 

There is a most difficult road ahead to achieve the goal of an open society but the 
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination sincerely believes that it can be and 
must be achieved with the greatest expediency possible. 



5 



STAFF — NEW FACES 

Commissioner 

Mrs. Erna Ballantine, Boston. Education: University of Havana, Cuba; North- 
eastern University and Boston University. Board Member: American Friends Service 
Committee, Boston Area School Placement Program (BRIDGE), Citizens Housing and 
Planning Council, Commission on Housing, Metropolitan Boston Association, United 
Church of Christ, CORE, Ecumenical Center in Roxbury, Educational Enrichment 
Program, Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity, NAACP, St. Mark Social 
Center, Y.W.C.A., Vice-President-United Community Services; charter board member. 
Citizens for Boston Public Schools and co-founder of Our Neighborhood Betterment 
Council. 

Director of Research 

Thomas H. Freeman, Reading. Education: Maiden Business College, Suffolk Univer- 
sity, Northeastern University — B.B.A. degree in Industrial Relations and Brandeis 
University (Lasker Fellow). Military Service: Joined U. S. Army Air Corp as Private. 
Is now Major and Commander of 85th Air Terminal Squadron — Air Reserve. Member: 
Reserve Officers Association, West Side Social Club of Wakefield, American Legion. 
State Employees Association and Director — West Side Building Association. Publica- 
tions: "The South End Images", "The Job Applicant 45 Years of Age and Over" and 
"A Study of the Employment Problems of the Older Worker." 

Mr. Freeman, who was formerly a field representative with the Commission, is not 
a new face, but one in a new position. 

Field Representative 

Gregory P. Centeio, New Bedford. Education: New Bedford Institute of Tech- 
nology, Boston College and Department of Labor. Member: Cape Verdean Action 
Committee, Cape Verdean Ultramarine Band Club, Inc., Adolph F. "Doc" Coimbra 
Scholarship Fund, Workshop for Equality, former member of New Bedford Chamber 
of Commerce. 

A former member of the Massachusetts Division of Employment Security, Mr. Centeio 
is a specialist on testing. 

SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTIVITIES 

The twenty-first Annual Report of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrim- 
ination covers the period of the 1966 calendar year . 

There were 706 matters filed with the Commission for the reporting year. These 
matters involved alleged incidents of unlawful discrimination based on race, color, 
religious creed, national origin, sex, age or ancestry in employment and on race, creed, 
color, national origin or ancestry in housing, places of public accommodations and ad- 
mission to educational institutions. 

A survey of the tenant selection policies of 27 public housing authorities was con- 
ducted by the staff to determine the existence of equal opportunity, equal treatment 
and absence of segregation. 

The survey included a stringent examination and analysis of tenant selection and 
assignment procedures, the number and name of each completed housing development, 
the management of each housing authority and the contemplated number of units to 
be built within the immediate future. 

An opinion sur\'ey of civil rights leaders throughout the Commonwealth was com- 
pleted and reported in 1966. This survey acquired documented information of the 
awareness and attitudes of the civil rights leaders relating to the Commission, its func- 
tions, effectiveness and performance and the extent of their specific knowledge pertain- 
ing to the laws administered by the MCAD. A summary of this survey is recounted in 
a subsequent section of this report. 

The pilot study of employment policies and patterns in the transportation industry 
conducted by the Commission, as a result of a federal grant and with the cooperation 
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Wayne State University, was 



6 



completed and reported during 1966. The findings of this study appear in another 
section of this lepon. 

As part of the Commission educational program 5700 units of the study. " Discrim- 
ination — Danger to Democracy", were disiributed to high schools throughout the 
Commonwealth. Some school ofl&cials were oriented, others re-oriented to the use of 
this brochure and the bibliography included therein. 

Consistent with Commission policy an annual examination was made of the adver- 
tising brochures used by resorts doing business within the state. Xo violations '>%ere 
found in the 1234 brochures examined during the reporting year. 

New Bedford Mayor HaiTington and the Commission s New Bedford Council were 
co-s|:onsors with the Commission of an Equal Employment Opportunity Day held in 
that ciiv in January. This was attended by representatives of 35 different business 
interests from the local community. As a result of this project, job opportunities were 
made available and emplovment given to non-whites by a number of the companies 
who were represented at the conference. Some of these companies had onlv hired 
whites; others had hired non-whites only for menial jobs up to this time. 

A series of conferences were held with representatives of the large chain retail stores 
having supermarkets in the New Bedford-Fall River-Cape Cod area. They agreed to 
cooperate in producing a change in emplovment practices whereby it appeared that 
non-whites were excluded bv design. A progiam was initiated to ascertain that non- 
whites applv and be employed, when qualified. 

The Commission was co-sponsor in a Job Opportunity Day held at Springfield in 
March. Fifty of the largest employers in the Greater Springfield area participated in 
the program which emphasized the existence of job opportimities for non-whites. 
Over eight hundred interested persons attended the program. Of this number forty- 
seven were hired that day. Numerous others were found qualified and informed their 
application would be kept on file for future contact. 

During 1966 the Commission conducted 56 public hearings. It petitioned the Su- 
perior Court eleven times for injunctions. Five requests were granted, two were denied 
and agreements were reached in four cases prior to the couk taking any action. The 
respondent appealed to the Superior Court from an order by the Commission in five 
cases. 

An amendment to the law enacted in June requires the Commission to include in 
its annual report all opinions for which a bona fide occupational qualification was 
sought bv an emplover, emplo^Tnent agenc\ or labor organization. There were seven- 
teen such requests after the effective date. September 27, 1966. These are recorded in 
this report. These were pan of 150 requests made for bona fide occupational qual- 
ifications during the entire year. 

The Commission members and staff gave addresses in 92 Speaking engagements and 
were participants in an additional 153 conferences. Thev made 24 radio broadcasts 
and participated in 3 telecasts. 

After repeated requests for a New Bedford office the Commission was provided with 
funds for a field representative and senior clerk-stenographer to operate out of this 
area. Because no provisions were made for office, furniture and other necessaries to 
operate such an office, the Commission has been able resourcefully to acquire office 
space and furniture from ONBOAEJD. a New Bedford communitv action agencv. This 
new Commission office was officiallv opened. November 21, 1966. 

The Boston, Springfield and New Bedford offices of the Commission were visited bv 
1545 persons, who made inquiries ^ : fference to their rights, pri\-ileges and respon- 
sibilities under the la\\s administere :1 b' ::te Commission. 

COMPLL\NCE THROUGH COMPLAINTS 

The complaint method continues to be the most effective, decisive and swift means 
of acquiring compliance with the laws against discrimination. The success obtained 
in this manner is reflected by the increased caseload as personified bv the ever grow- 
ing number of persons filing individual complaints. Success is further reSected bv 
the allegiance and support given the Commission by an increasing number of the 
social action organizations throughout the Commonwealth. The interest and faith 



7 



shown by these agencies has been a factor aiding in the growth of the caseload as a 
result of referrals of aggrieved individuals to the Commission for assistance. These 
factors added to the augmenting of the caseload by the filing of Commission initiated 
complaints has resulted in the increase shown by the statistics presented elsewhere in 
this report. 

Because of statutory provision the Commission may not disclose what has occurred 
in the course of its endeavors to eliminate discriminatory practices through the process 
of conference, conciliation and persuasion. The Commission is allowed to publish the 
facts in the case of any complaint which has been dismissed and the terms of con- 
ciliation when disposition has been made. Limiting itself to the prescribed functions 
the Commission is reporting six case histories of complaints disposed of by means of 
conciliation. 

Two histories reported cite complaints in employment discrimination: one involving 
color; the other involving sex. One history reports a public accommodations com- 
plaint; the other three are in the area of housing. 

Complaint Histories 

Employment 
Case No. XXI-3-C 

This complaint was filed with the MCAD against one plant of a large textile chain, 
January 11, 1966. The complainant alleged that he had applied to the Massachusetts 
Division of Employment Security for a job. The interviewer first telephoned a Mer- 
rimack Valley company to ascertain the vacancy existed and then referred the com- 
plainant for employment. Upon arrival at the plant contact was made with the per- 
sonnel supervisor, who stated that a vacancy existed and took the complainant to see 
the foreman. The foreman said there was no vacancy and that someone was coming 
that afternoon to fill the vacancy. 

The complainant charged that he was denied employment and discriminated against 
because of his color since both the employment agency interviewer and personnel super- 
visor had stated that a job was available, but the foreman had not hired him. 

Investigation disclosed that the complainant was subjected to unequal terms and 
conditions of employment for the following reasons: 

The respondent had used different criteria evaluating the complainant than that 
used to assess two white applicants, who applied within two days after the complainant 
(experience possessed by the complainant was disregarded); 

Conflicting statements were made by the personnel department that applicants are 
required to complete their application form (the complainant was allegedly refused be- 
cause he had not, the two white applicants failing to answer the same questions were 
hired); 

The respondent insisted that the complainant should have accepted employment 
on the second shift but only the first and third shifts were offered to the two applicants 
hired; 

The requirement that the complainant complete the question on the employment 
application form pertaining to personal references but ignoring the fact that the two 
applicants hired had failed to answer the same section; 

The fact that the complainant was informed by the state employment agency in- 
terviewer and the personnel manager of the respondent that there was a vacancy on 
the first shift for which he applied and which the foreman claimed was filled; and 

The personnel manager admitting that he had made no attempt to check and obtain 
information concerning the references of the two applicants hired (one for the first 
and one for the third shift). 

The complaint was conciliated when the respondent hired the complainant; 

Held a series of orientation meetings in which all administrative, managerial and 
executive personnel were thoroughly instructed that the company policy is one of equal 
employment opportunity and directed that there must be complete compliance; and 

Applicants were sought through personal contact with all segments of the com- 
munity to include the minority groups, with positive statements of hiring policy so 
that there can be no doubt that all applicants will receive the same consideration and 
treatment. 



8 



Cases No. II-50-S— II-57-S 

These complaints filed by women employees against the emplover, August 24, 1966, 
alleging discrimination in terms and conditions of employment by refusal to consider 
and upgrade any of them to a position as accountant irrespective of the fact that they 
possess the required qualifications to include seniority to make them eligible for con- 
sideration and appointment. The complainants alleged that the vacancy was posted 
for bid in accordance with union contract. When they bid upon the job, they were 
notified that the work was not suitable for a female. The job was awarded to a male 
emplovee possessing much less seniority. 

The respondent, a public utility, claimed that the job required auditing of supplies 
at a number of warehouses; doing some heavy lifting during the auditing; getting on 
the job between 4:00-4:30 A.M. some mornings; climbing heights up to fifteen feet to 
conduct the audit; perfonning the audit in buildings that possess no rest room facilities 
for women and open door rest room facilities for men, which would be exposed to the 
accountant: tra\ersing a catwalk four stories above the ground; being in an area where 
there are only males some of whom use extensive profanity; and work too dirty for a 
woman. 

The Commission found discrimination was practiced against the female employees 
after detemiining that the job was not one that would be "physically injurious or a 
health hazard" to a female employee. 

The case was conciliated on the following terms: 

1. That the position of accountant be declared open to all qualified persons regard- 
less of sex; 

2. That adequate compensation be paid the female complainant with the greatest 
seniority, who bid upon the job; and 

3. That the respondent's employment application form be revised to eliminate the 
unlawful inquiry into the maiden name of the wife of male applicants. 

Public Accommodations 

Case No. XVI-7-C 

The complainant charged that he was denied accommodations at a Cape Cod camp- 
ing site because of his color. He alleged that he accompanied by his nine year old 
child and a white friend and her eleven year old child had driven to the Cape from 
Boston, Saturday morning, July 23, 1966, after he had worked the previous day and 
night. During the trip while being relieved from driving, he fell asleep. "When he 
awoke, the friend was talking with the person apparently in charge of the camp site. 
The camp site was for him and his family and did not involve the friend. As he got 
out of the car and started toward the camp operator, his friend turned, approached 
him and informed him that accommodations were refused after the operator, noticing 
him asleep in the car, stated, "^Ve don't take them. We don't take Negroes." 

Upon completion of the investigation, the investigating commissioner ruled that 
discrimination was practiced. 

Terms of conciliation included the offering of facilities to the complainant and a 
written statement that camp sites will be available for rental to applicants without 
regard to their race, color, religious creed or national origin. Further the respondent 
pledged strict adherence to the provisions of the public accommodations law against 
discrimination. 

Housing 

Case No. PrH VIII-17-C 

The complainant filed a complaint with the Commission, March 16, 1966 alleging 
that he and his wife examined and rented an apartment in Taunton, March 12, 1966 
at which time he was given keys to the front and back doors. 

\\Tien he tried to enter the apartment, a few days later, to measure windows foi 
curtains, he discovered the keys would not unlock the apartment doors. He alleged 
further that he had given a forty dollar deposit to the respondent after examining the 
apartment and arranged for his wife to bring the remaining balance of thirty-five 
dollars to the respondent as soon as he returned home as payment in advance for one 
month's rent. 



9 



While the wife was en route with the balance of the first month's rent, the re- 
spondent telephoned and stated he would like to return the deposit, because the 
neighbors were acting as if "something was going to happen." The respondent's wife 
accepted the balance and turned over the keys to the wife of the complainant. Two 
days later the respondent phoned again and wanted to return the deposit for the 
first month's rent, giving as a reason that the second and third floor occupants of the 
house would move because there was not sufficient playroom in the backyard. The 
complainant has six children, ages one to ten. 

The complainant contacted the second floor occupant, a former co-worker of the 
complainant's, who stated that he was aware of what was occurring because the re- 
spondent had contacted him several times and stated he was looking for a legal way 
to prevent the complainant from becoming a tenant. The second floor tenant has only 
one small child and the third floor tenant none. 

The complainant charged the respondent with unlawful discrimination in denying 
him housing because of his color. 

During the course of the investigation the respondent stated that the complainant 
had six children. Since the apartment had been completely redecorated and modern- 
ized, the six children, without adequate play yard space would destroy the apartment. 
He stated further that he had purchased the property as an investment. The income 
just covers operating expenses. If one or both of the other tenants move because the 
complainant is rented the apartment, the property will be lost through mortgage fore- 
closure to the bank. The respondent denied at all times that color was a determinant 
in the rental. 

After the Commission field representative pointed out that the respondent knew the 
size of the complainant's family from the start of inquiries and negotiations, and that 
irrespective of this a contract had been consummated, the respondent said the com- 
plainant could have the apartment. He explained that he had contacted his attorney 
after accepting the month's rent in advance from the complainant. The attorney had 
advised the changing of the locks and the lock-out as the easiest, least complicated way 
to handle the matter. 

The respondent telephoned the complainant, apologized and offered the apartment. 
The complainant accepted and moved in promptly, after a rent adjustment was made 
for the period of lock-out. 

Case No. SPr HIII-8-C 

In response to a newspaper advertisement the complainant made an appointment to 
see an apartment in Holyoke. When he and his fiancee kept the appointment, the 
respondent informed them the apartment was rented and that she had accepted a de- 
posit. In answer to inquiries she stated she had other apartments but they were rented 
also. She did, however, show an apartment. 

After leaving the respondent's property the complainant, a Negro, contacted a white 
friend and related his experience. The friend phoned the same number and made an 
arrangement to see the advertised apartment without committal by the respondent as 
to its status. 

The friend was shown several apartments by the respondent. He expressed a pref- 
erence for one apartment and placed a fifteen dollar deposit on it using as name of 
the depositor that of the complainant. 

When the respondent gave the friend the receipt, she informed him of the attempt 
by the complainant to rent an apartment. She explained she had been non-committal, 
while talking on the phone, because she thought the complainant was checking her 
statements. 

The complaint was then filed with the Commission charging the respondent with 
refusing to rent an apartment to the complainant because of his color. 

The respondent admitted during the investigation that she had told the complainant 
the apartment was rented. She also admitted showing a different apartment to the 
complainant's friend and accepting a deposit. When asked to rent an apartment to the 
complainant, she stated all her apartments were rented. She gave the names of the 
parties to whom the apartments were allegedly rented. Investigation failed to produce 
any of the individual renters. Whereupon the Commission obtained an injunction 



10 



against the respondent, after the respondent told the field representative she had listed 
her apartment houses for sale with two of the local real estate agencies. 

The complaint was disposed of through conciliation with the following terms: 
That the complainant be offered an apartment; and 

That the respondent accord all applicants equal treatment without regard to race, 
color, religious creed or national origin. 

The complainant accepted the apartment and moved into it, June 18, 1966. The 
respondent gave a pledge of compliance to the Commission. 

Case No. PrH VIII-67-C 

The complainant contacted the respondent by phone and inquired if an apartment 
at a specific address in Lowell was for rent. When the reply was in the affirmative, the 
complainant made an appointment to examine it. At the appointed time the re- 
spondent drove up to the designated address and asked if the complainant was Mrs. 

. Upon receiving confirmation the respondent stated she did not rent to 

colored. She added she would absolutely not rent to the complainant because all the 
tenants would move out. The complainant was not shown the apartment. As a result 
of the conversation and actions of the respondent, a complaint was filed charging that 
the complainant was discriminated against and denied housing accommodations be- 
cause of her color. 

A tester contacted the respondent following the complainant's experience. The tester 
was informed that there was an apartment for rent. The tester then informed the 
respondent that there is a state law making it illegal to discriminate against applicants 
because of their color. When told that a complaint had been filed against her the re- 
spondent became very angry. She said all her other tenants would move out and that 
she was not going to rent to colored and that was that. 

When the Commission field representative performing the investigation reviewed the 
complaint with the respondent, the latter agreed that all the allegations were accurate 
and true. She stated that she had nothing against Negroes, but she was afraid of them 
She also feared that if she rented to one Negro family, she would have to rent all 
her apartments to Negroes. She was certain that Negroes do not properly maintain 
their apartments and in a very short time her apartment houses (she owns six) would 
look like those on Street, a Negro area. 

The respondent said she had discussed the complainant and tester with her brother- 
in-law the night before the investigation was conducted. She was surprised when he 
told her that the passing of a housing bill by Congress appeared imminent. She dis- 
cussed the state law with the Commission field representative and indicated that her 
mind was now changed, she would rent to Negroes, however the apartment referred to 
in the complaint had been rented. This fact was established by examination of her 
records. 

The respondent had a vacancy in the building next door, which she offered to the 
complainant. This apartment was in better condition at a slightly higher price. The 
respondent promised to apply the same standards of qualification to the complainant 
accorded other applicants. Also, she promised she would offer the complainant first 
preference. 

The complainant rented the apartment. She is well pleased with the apartment and 
her neighbors. The respondent has been very helpful and cooperative. When she col- 
lects her rents each week, she makes the stop at the complainant's apartment a social 
call, where she sits and chats over a cup of coffee. She and the complainant have be- 
come friends and address each other by the first name. 

PUBLIC HEARINGS 

Reported this year are the decisions in five appeals to the Superior Court for judicial 
review from orders issued by the Commission after conducting public hearings. There 
are also two cases pending before the Massachusetts Supreme Court: Strong v. New 
Haven Railroad and MCAD v. Local Finance Co., of Rockland. 

Among these appeals was one by a complainant, whose complaint was dismissed. 
The Commission in issuing the order reversed the decision of the investigating com- 



11 



raissioner. who had found for the complainant in a complaint alleging discrimination 
in being discharged from employment because of color. The following is the court 
decision. 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Suffolk, SS. Superior Court 

No. 84004 Equity 

CLARENCE STRONG 
vs. 

MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST 
DISCRIMINATION 
and 

Richard Joyce Smith, William J. Kirk, and Harry W. Dorigan 
Final Decree 

This cause came on to be heard upon a Petition for Review of an order of the Mas- 
sachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and was argued by Counsel thereon and 
thereupon, upon consideration thereof it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed 
that the decision of the Commission is hereby affirmed. 

By the Court, (Vallely, J.) 

Entered: February 4, 1966 



COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION Findings of Fact 

On Relation of: Conclusions of Law 

MILDRED J. McINTYRE, Complainant and Order 

Against 

PATRICK F. CACCAMO and PrH VII-79-C 

MARY J. MARCELLING, Respondents 

Upon all the evidence at the hearing herein the Massachusetts Commission Against 
Discrimination, by Malcolm C. Webber, Presiding Hearing Commissioner and Hearing 
Commissioners Ben G. Shapiro and John F. Albano, finds that the respondent, Patrick 
F. Caccamo, has engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices as defined in Chapter 
151 B, section 4, paragraph 7 of the Massachusetts General Laws, and further finds that 
the respondent, Mary J. Marcellino, has not engaged in any unlawful discriminatory 
practices, and states its findings as follows: 

Findings of Fact 

(1) The complaint dated September 20, 1965 was filed by Mildred J. Mclntyre, com- 
plainant, for alleged discriminatory practices in violation of G. L. Chapter 151B, by the 
respondents, Patrick F. Caccamo and Mary J. Marcellino. 

(2) Mildred J. Mclntyre, is a Negro. She is a service representative employed by 
New England Telephone and Telegraph Company. 

(3) On Friday, September 17, 1965, the complainant telephoned the respondent, 
Patrick F. Caccamo, in response to an advertisement that appeared in the Belmont 
Citizen and Belmont Herald, reading as follows: 

"Belmont, Nov. 1, 2nd floor, nr. church, transportation, parking space avail- 
able, call IV 4-2946 between 7 and 3 P.M." 
The respondent was an owner of said apartment which was located at 42-44 White 
Street, Belmont, and he had placed said advertisement in said newspaper for the pur- 
pose of offering the apartment for rent to members of the public. 

(4) Mrs. Mclntyre told the respondent that she was interested in the apartment. The 
respondent instructed her to call a Mrs. Nilsen, the then tenant of the apartment, in 
order to arrange to see it. The respondent asked who the apartment was for and how 
many people there were in the complainant's family, to which she replied that it was 
for her mother, herself and two teenage children, and that her older brother would be 
staying there for a while before he decided whether or not to enter the Army. In 
the course of the telephone conversation the complainant was advised that tiie rent 
was §100 a month without heat and that there were six rooms, and who was to pay 



12 



the utilities. The respondent did not then say that any other people were interested 
in the apartment. 

(5) Immediately after speaking to the respondent, the complainant telephoned said 
Mrs. Betty Nilsen and arranged to see the said apartment in the morning of the next 
day, Saturday, September 18, 1965. Mrs. Nilsen did not say when she was first tele- 
phoned that any other people were interested in the apartment. 

(6) On Saturday, September 18, 1965, at about 10:00 A.M. the complainant was shown 
the apartment by Mrs. Nilsen, and ascertained from her various facts about it. The 
complainant said that she was very interested, and was advised by Mrs. Nilsen that 
she would have to speak further to the respondent. Mrs. Nilsen said that she had just 
received a telephone call from another lady who was also very interested. 

(7) As soon as the complainant left the apartment, Mrs. Nilsen telephoned the home 
of the respondent and asked for him, but he was out. Mrs. Nilsen spoke, however, 
with the respondent's wife and informed her of the complainant's visit and that she 
was a Negro. 

(8) Shortly after viewing the apartment, at about 10:15 A.M., the complainant tried 
to reach the respondent by telephone at his home. The phone was answered by the 
respondent's wife who said that she was expecting the respondent at 12:00 noon. The 
complainant left her name but not her telephone number. 

(9) At 12:00 noon of said Saturday, the complainant telephoned again and the tele- 
phone was answered by an unidentified woman who said that the respondent would 
not be in until 5:30 P.M. The complainant called again at 5:30 P.M. and was told by 
a child that the respondent would not be there until after dinner. The complainant 
telephoned at 6:30 P.M. and that time succeeded in reaching the respondent. She iden- 
tified herself by name and the respondent acknowledged recognizing her. The com- 
plainant said that she was very interested in the apartment. The respondent replied, 
"Yes, I have about ten people who are also very interested in it and I am going to 
have to make a decision regarding the apartment. Is there a number that I can call 
you at?" The complainant furnished to the respondent her number to the telephone 
business office, and the telephone conversation ended. The respondent did not elicit 
additional information as to the complainant's background, financial responsibility or 
family during this conversation, nor did he request her to furnish such information in 
the future. 

(10) On the same Saturday, September 18, 1965, on or about 6:30, one Donald 
Mclnnes, who is the Chairman of the Fair Housing Sub-Committee of the Watertown 
Fair Practices Committee, was advised by the Chairman of the Belmont Fair Housing 
Committee that the complainant was having difficulty renting said apartment and he 
was asked to "test" the availability of the apartment. Accordingly, he immediately 
telephoned the respondent, representing that he was a person interested in the apart- 
ment. Mr. Mclnnes was advised by the respondent that the apartment was available 
November 1, 1965, as had been stated in the ad. He was told that the rent was $100 
a month, plus heat and utilities, and to arrange to see the apartment with Mrs. Nilsen. 
Mr. Mclnnes is white. 

(11) The next day, Sunday, Mr. Mclnnes and his wife viewed the apartment, being 
shown about by Mr. and Mrs. Nilsen. Mrs. Mclnnes said that they had two children, 
10 and 12 years old. The Nilsens stated that four other people had looked at the apart- 
ment, one of whom was a Negro. One of the Nilsens said, "Of course, it would be 
difficult for Mr. Caccamo to rent to a Negro because he had so many relatives in the 
neighborhood." One of the Nilsens also said that the lower floor apartment was oc- 
cupied by a relative of the Caccamo family. 

(12) At about 2:30 P.M. on Sunday, Mr, Mclnnes telephoned the respondent and 
said he wished to take the apartment. The respondent replied that one other person 
had expressed serious interest in the apartment and that he wanted to wait until he 
heard from that one other person. The respondent did not name said other interested 
party but used the pronoun "he" in referring to him. The respondent said that he 
wanted references from the other interested person; and that if that person "fell out 
of the picture," then from Mr. Mclnnes. The respondent said that there would be a 
short-time lag between obtaining the references, investigating them, and then letting 
the other person or Mr. Mclnnes know if they could rent the apartment. 



13 



(13) Mr, Mclnnes tried to telephone the respondent later in the day on Sunday but 
was unsuccessful in reaching him. He next spoke to the respondent on the morning 
of Monday, September 20, and was then told that the other person had not yet called. 
In that conversation, or in a previous one, Mr. Mclnnes advised the respondent that 
he had two children and would stay at least two years. Thereafter, on Monday eve- 
ning, the respondent and Mr. Mclnnes had a further conversation of an inconclusive 
nature during which the respondent said that he hoped to be able to rent the apart- 
ment for more than two years. On ^Vednesday evening, Mclnnes again called the re- 
spondent, and was told that he was withdrawing the apartment from the market be- 
cause a legal matter had arisen. (The complaint herein had been filed the previous 
Monday.) 

(14) The respondent's statement made to the complainant that he had "about ten 
people who were also very interested" in the apartment was untrue, and the respond- 
ent knew it was imtrue. It was made to discourage the complainant from further seek- 
ing the apartment. 

(15) The respondent's response and statements to the complainant over the telephone 
on the evening of Saturdav, September 18, were markedlv different from and less 
favorable than his response and statements to Donald Mclnnes at 2:30 P.M. the ne.Kt 
day, and thereafter. Such difference in treatment was not based on any information 
then or thereafter in the respondent's possession relating to complainant's credit, tenant 
suitability, references or the like. The respondent made no effort to investigate the com- 
plainant's acceptibility in these respects during or following their telephone conver- 
sation Saturday evening. 

(16) The respondent's statement to Donald Mclnnes at 2:30 P.M. on Sunday, Septem- 
ber 19, that only one other person had expressed serious interest in the apartment, 
and his subsequent references to such person as "he", indicated that the respondent 
was determined not to rent to the complainant or to consider her further although she 
had, in fact, expressed serious interest the previous day and although the respondent 
had no derogators- information about her. 

(17) The respondent knew that the complainant was a Negro at the time of his 
telephone conversation with her Saturday evening, September 18. 

Conclusions 

(1) The apartment in question in this proceeding located at 42-44 White Street, 
Belmont, comes within the definition of "other covered housing accommodations" 
within the meaning of Clause 12 of Section 1 of General Laws Chapter 151B. 

(2) The respondent's course of conduct, statements and dealings with respect to the 
complainant, Mildred J. Mclntyre, were such as to amount to a refusal to negotiate 
with her in good faith for the leasing of said apanment because of her race or color, 
and were an unlawful practice within the meaning of G. L. c. 151B, s. 4. 

(3) The respondent's course of conduct, statements and dealings with respect to the 
complainant, Mildred J. Mclntyre, were such as to constitute a denial to and with- 
holding from her of said apartment because of her race and color and were an unlaw- 
ful practice within the meaning of G. L. c. 15 IB, s. 4. 

(4) No evidence was presented indicating that Man- J. Marcellino participated in 
any way in any of the aforesaid conduct, statements or dealings. 

Order 

Upon the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 
151 B, of the General Laws of Massachusetts, it is hereby 

ORDERED, by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 

1. That all charges against Man.- J. Marcellino be dismissed. 

2. That respondent Patrick F. Caccamo, his agents, senants. emplovees. assigns and 
successors shall: 

a) Cease and desist from denying to and withholding from said Mildred J. 
Mclntyre, the said housing accommodation located at 42-44 "White Street, 
Belmont. 

b) Offer forthwith to complainant, Mildred J. Mclntyre, the said housing accom- 
modations located at 42-44 "White Street, Belmont. 



14 



c) If said Mildred J. Mclntyre no longer desires to rent said housing accommo- 
dations, cease and desist from denying any other prospective tenant, on the 
basis of race, creed, color, national origin or national ancestry, the opportunity 
to rent or lease or negotiate for the rent or lease of said housing accommoda- 
tions at such time or times as said housing accommodations may again here- 
after be directly or through an agent made generally available to the public 
for lease or rental, by any means of public offering. 
3. Notify the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination at its offices at 
41 Tremont Street, Boston, 02108, within 30 days after service of this Order, as to 
steps respondent, Patrick F. Caccamo, has taken to comply with such Order. 

s/ MALCOLM C. WEBBER 

Presiding Hearing Commissioner 

s/ BEN G. SHAPIRO 

Hearing Commissioner 

s/ JOHN F. ALBANO 
Hearing Commissioner 

Dated January 5, 1966, Boston, County of Suffolk 

An order was issued by the Commission, December 17, 1963, against Respondent 
George V. Wattendorf, a real estate broker and housing management business opera- 
tor, in determination of a public hearing involving a housing complaint. 

The respondent appealed this order. At the conclusion of the appeal hearing the 
Suffolk Superior Court issued a decree supporting the Commission order, October 24, 
1964. 

As a result of a complaint filed the following day the Commission initiated con- 
tempt proceedings against the respondent. The following is the brief, filed for the 
Commission by its legal counsel, the assistant attorney generals named hereinafter, 
which was prepared for the contempt hearing that took place before the Suffolk 
Superior Court, March 3, 1966. 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Suffolk, ss. Superior Court 

No. 82138 Equity 

MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION, Petitioner 

v, 

GEORGE V. WATTENDORF, Respondent 
PETITIONER'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE ARGUMENT THAT A 
FINDING OF CONTEMPT WILL LIE AGAINST GEORGE V. WATTEN- 
DORF IF THE COURT FINDS THAT JOHN J. COLEMAN, WHILE 
ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, UNLAWFULLY 
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ROGER MATTHEWS ON THE 20TH AND 
22ND OF OCTOBER, 1965. 

Statement of the Case 
On October 25, 1964, this Honorable Court entered a final decree in the above-en- 
titled case, a copy of which decree is annexed to the petition as "Exhibit A".3 
In said decree, the respondent, George V. Wattendorf, who at the time the decree was 

1 The respondent, Wattendorf, has attempted to challenge the scope of the October 
26, 1964 decree. The rule in Massachusetts is clear, namely, that in a contempt pro- 
ceeding, there can be no re-examination of the merits nor any hearing to determine 
whether or not the injunction is too broad. Irving and Casson v. Howlett, 229 Mass. 
560, 562; Hamlin v. N. Y., N. H. and Hartford R.R., 170 Mass. 548; Bacon V. Onset 
Bay Grove Association, 286 Mass. 487, 490; State Realty Co. of Boston, Inc. v. MacNeil, 
341 Mass. 123, 124. 



15 



entered and at all times therafter, has been conducting a real estate business in 
Dorchester, Boston, Massachusetts, was ordered to refrain from engaging in discrim- 
inator)' practices. The decree, in part, ordered: 

"1. That respondent cease and desist and in the future refrain from making 
any inquiry, distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of color 
or race in the conduct of any phase of respondent's business." (Emphasis 
supplied.) 

On October 25, 1965, a complaint was filed with the Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination alleging that the respondent, George V. Wattendorf and his 
employee, John J. Coleman, had discriminated in the conduct of his business against 
one Roger Matthews because of Matthew's race and color. As a result of an investiga- 
tion of this complaint, the Commission authorized the bringing of a petition for con- 
tempt against George V. Wattendorf and John J. Coleman. An order of notice was 
issued by this Court against Wattendorf only .2 

At the hearing on the petition, there was evidence that George V. W^attendorf con- 
ducted a real estate brokerage and management business at 618 Washington Street, 
Dorchester, under the name of G. V. Wattendorf, Realtor (Exhibit 2), which business 
was a sole proprietorship; that John J. Coleman was the respondent George V. Watten- 
dorf 's sales manager at the 618 Washington Street office; that Coleman had authority 
to run the office and to place newspaper ads and real estate rental listings on behalf of 
Wattendorf; that Coleman had authority to determine what rental properties to show 
and what properties not to show to customers of Wattendorf; and that Coleman acted 
solely for, in the name of, and on behalf of Wattendorf, whose name appears on the 
office where Coleman works, in whose name all telephones are listed, whose business 
name appears on Coleman's business card (Exhibit 2), and who receives a share of all 
commissions on rentals consummated by Coleman on Wattendorf 's behalf. 

There was also extensive evidence upon which this Court would be justified in 
finding that Coleman, acting in the scope of his authority and employment, and for 
and in behalf of Wattendorf, treated Matthews, a Negro, in a discriminatory manner 
because of his color and race by withholding rental properties of the general type 
sought by Matthews. 

Following the hearing, during oral argument, the Court raised the question whether 
it would be justified in holding Wattendorf in contempt where Wattendorf himself 
had not directly and personally engaged in the transactions with Matthews. 

This brief is directed primarily to this one question. The petitioner respectfully 
submits that a decree directing Wattendorf not to discriminate "in any phase of his 
business," makes Wattendorf accountable for actions violative of said decree carried 
out by his servants and employees, and that acts of discrimination committed by his 
own sales manager, while acting within the scope of his employment and for Watten- 
dorf's benefit, constitute the nonperformance of a nondelegable duty imposed by the 
court. 



2 The court would not issue an order of notice against Coleman on the basis that 
he was not a party to the case out of which arose the October 26, 1964, decree. We 
respectfully submit that the Court was in error in refusing to issue the order of notice 
against Coleman since it is a well-established rule that an individual may be held 
in contempt of a judicial decree although not a party to the decree if it is shown 
that the individual knew of the decree and was aware that his conduct was contrary 
to the mandate of the court. See Alves v. Town of Braintree, 341 Mass. 6, 166 N.E. 
2d 720 (1960); Spence v. Woodman Co., 213 Ga. 588, 100 S.E. 2d 435 (1957); Wallace 
V. Sowards, 313 Ky. 360, 231 S.W. 2d 10 (1950); Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff; 42 F. 2d 
832 (1930); People v. Kennedy, 43, 111. App. 2d 299, 193 N.E. 2d 464 (1963); New York 
State Labor Relations Board v. George B. Wheeler, Inc., 31 N.Y.S. 2d 785, 177 Misc. 
945 (1941). The fact that no order of notice was issued against John J. Coleman does 
not preclude his being held in contempt at this later date. This Court could, in the 
interest of preserving its decrees, issue an order of notice to John J. Coleman direct- 
ing him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of the October 26, 1964 
decree of this Court. 



16 



Argument 

In proceedings against the respondent, George V. Wattendorf, for civil contempt of 
the October 26, 1964, decree ordering the respondent not to discriminate in any phase 
of his business it is no defense that the act of discrimination was committed by the 
respondent's sales manager, the respondent being strictly accountable for the acts of 
his employees while they are acting within the scope of their authority. 

An examination of the authorities reveals that it has long been the rule that an 
employer who has been enjoined from performing a certain act cannot in a contempt 
proceeding defend on the basis that the act was performed by his agent, acting 
within the scope of his authority but contrary to the orders of the employer. 

"It is the clear duty of one who is enjoined from the commission of a 
particular act not only to refrain from doing the act in person, but also to 
restrain his employees from doing the thing forbidden, and a mere passive 
and personal obedience to the order will not suffice. And when, by his own 
negligence and inattention, one who has been enjoined permits his agents, 
partners and employees to do the prohibited act, he may be punished for 
contempt in disregarding the injunction. And where defendant, against whom 
an injunction has been issued, negligently fails to take the proper steps to 
insure obedience to the writ upon the part of his employees, he may be held 
guilty of a violation of the injunction." 

Injunction, High, 4th Edition, sec. 1438, Citing Poertner v. Russell, 33 Wise. 
193 (1873); Westinghouse A-B-Co. v. Christensen E. Co. 121 Fed. 562 (1903). 

In the Westinghouse case, the defendant company had been enjoined from infring- 
ing upon the complainant's patents. Although the officers of the defendant corpora- 
tion issued orders to the employees not to make certain devices, when the devices 
were manufactured in violation of the injunction, the court found the defendant cor- 
poration in contempt, ruling that the "enjoined defendant should take such steps 
as will enforce obedience to their instructions on part of the employees." 

The cases referred to above and those which follow take into consideration that 
it would be almost impossible to enforce a decree against an employer if he were 
allowed to plead that the contumacious act was performed by his employee against 
his express orders. Agreements and understandings of a sub rosa nature between em- 
ployer and employee could easily be used to circumvent a judicial decree if it were 
required that there be proof of the employer's direct and explicit involvement in the 
violation of the decree. 

The instant decree forbidding discrimination "in any phase of" Wattendorf's busi- 
ness would be meaningless if it applied only to Wattendorf personally since many 
"phases" of the business are carried out by salesmen acting for Wattendorf. Ob- 
viously, it was intended that Wattendorf as head of the business assume responsibility 
for the actions of those under his control. This is scarcely a very severe burden, since 
in spite of Coleman's self-serving testimony that Wattendorf told him not to discrim- 
inate, we know as a practical matter that employees do not normally act contrary to 
the seriously -intended instructions of their boss. On the other hand, it is easy for 
an employer to give formal instructions "for the record" while letting it be known 
in hundreds of different ways that such instructions are not to be taken too seriously. 
The real test of the employer's good faith and diligence, obviously, is not the instruc- 
tions but what his employees actually do. 

A contempt case which is analogous is Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Sun Vacuum 
Stores, Inc., 192 F. Supp. 738 (1961). There certain salesmen of the defendant com 
pany were illegally exploiting the name of the Singer Manufacturing Company in 
an effort to promote the defendant's products. A consent decree was entered, and 
subsequently the Singer Manufacturing Company brought civil contempt proceedings 
against Sun (the corporation) alleging contempt of the decree. In holding that the 
corporation was in contempt. Judge Hartshorne stated: 

"The orders of the court must be obeyed, and to absolve a large or small 
corporate defendant from its responsibilities simply because the corporation 
has ordered compliance but has not sufficiently policed same, would be to 



17 



open the door for wholesale disobedience of the Court. As reiterated by Judge 
McLaughlin at pages 343 and 344 of 168 F. 2d in quoting Judge Cardozo: 

'The employer does not rid himself of that duty because the extent of the 
business may preclude his personal supervision, and compel reliance on sub- 
ordinates. He must then stand or fall with those whom he selects to act for 
him. He is in the same plight, if they are delinquent, as if he had failed to 
abate a nuisance on his land ... it is not an instance of respondent superior. 
It is a case of the non-performance of a nondelegable duty.' (Emphasis sup- 
plied). 

Although the salesmen have been acting on their own in violating the 
decree, the corporation certainly was reaping the benefits therefrom. Thus 
this argument of the defendant cannot stand. Good intentions of the corpora- 
tion do not absolve violations of a decree. McComb v. Jackson Paper Co., 336 
U. S. 187, 69 S. Ct. 497, 98 L. Ed 599 (and cases cited)" 

In United States v. Armour, 168 F 2nd 342, (1948) cited in the Singer case and 
which deals with the liability of corporations for the criminal acts of employees, refer- 
ence is made to United States v. George F. Fish, Inc., 154 F 2d, 798, 801, (1946), another 
case involving a violation of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 with a sales- 
man as principal offender. Although the decision deals with the enforcement of a 
Federal statute rather than a court decree, the rationale of the Court would be 
applicable in the civil contempt proceeding presently before this Court: 

"No distinctions are made in these cases between officers and agents, or 
between persons holding positions involving varying degrees of responsibility. 
And this seems the only practical conclusion in any case, but particularly here, 
where the sales proscribed by the Act will almost invariably be performed by 
subordinate salesmen, rather than by corporate chiefs and where the corporate 
hierarchy does not contemplate separate layers of official dignity, each with 
separate degrees of responsibility. The purpose of the Act is a deterrent one; 
and to deny the possibility of corporate responsibility for the acts of minor 
employees is to immunize the offender who really benefits and open wide the 
door for evasion." 

While the Singer Manufacturing Company case and the Armour case may be dis- 
tinguished on the ground that the business of the respondent in this case, George V. 
Wattendorf, is a sole proprietorship and not a corporation, it is submitted that this 
distinction is not significant. The basic rule in the Singer case is that judicial decrees 
will be jealously guarded and that inadequate policing by the party against whom 
the decree runs will be no defense when a subordinate violates the terms of the 
decree. 

Another federal contempt case which contains a probing analysis of the principles 
now under examination is Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F (2d) 833, (1930), a Second 
Circuit decision. There the plaintiff obtained an injunction against the defendant, 
an employer of the respondent, enjoining the employer, a sole proprietor, and "his 
agents, employees, associates and confederates", from infringing or "aiding or abetting 
or in any way contributing to the infringement of the plaintiff's patents." At the time 
of the original suit the respondent was a salesman for the employer, but later, having 
left his employ, he set up in business for himself and was proved to have infringed 
the patent. The plaintiff then began contempt proceedings on the original suit 
against the former employer (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) and against 
the respondent. The District Court Judge found that the former employer, (defendant) 
had no connection or part whatever in the acts of contempt adjudged against the 
respondent and dismissed the complaint against him. Nevertheless the District Court 
found the respondent, Staff, guilty and fined him for contumacy. Thereupon he 
appealed. 

The language of Judge Learned Hand's opinion in the Alemite case indicates that 
the position taken by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination in the 
case presently before this Court is eminently a sound one. (For purposes of clarification, 
the "defendant" referred to below is the person against whom the decree ran 



18 



in the infringement case; the "respondent" is the former employee of the defendant 
who was found guilty of contempt in the subsequent contempt proceeding). 

"On the other hand no court can make a decree which will bind any one 
but a party; a court of equity is as much so limited as a court of law; it can- 
not lawfully enjoin the world at large, no matter how broadly it words its 
decree. If it assumes to do so, the decree is pro tanto brutum fulmen, and 
the persons enjoined are free to ignore it. It is not vested with sovereign 
powers to declare conduct unlawful; its jurisdiction is limited to those over 
whom it gets personal service, and who therefore can have their day in court. 
Thus, the only occasion when a person not a party may be punished, is when 
he has helped to bring about, not merely w^hat the decree has forbidden, be- 
cause it may have gone too far, but what it has power to forbid, an act of a 
party. This means that the respondent must be either abet the defendant, 
or must be legally identified luith him. (Emphasis added). Strictly, therefore, 
the addition of such words as the plaintiff here relies on, adds nothing to the 
decree. (Emphasis added, referring to "agents, employees, associates," etc.) 
Without them anyone is liable who knowingly does what the court has 
properly enjoined; with them nobody is liable who does not . . . 

"Thus, if the defendant is not involved in the contempt, the employee 
cannot be; the decree has not been disobeyed, so far as it is valid. We may 
assume for argument that it is not necessary for the defendant expressly to 
authorize the act; that it is enough if the employee acts within the scope of 
his authority. But that does not affect the principle, rather it illustrates it, 
since the authority of an agent need never be express." 
Judge Hand then compared the case with the Supreme Court case of Ex parte 
Lennon, 166 U. S. 548, 17 S. Ct. 658, 41 LEd. 1110, wherein the court held in con- 
tempt an employee who refused to move cars of the defendant railway after a man- 
dator)' injunction had directed it to accept those of another road whose employees 
were on strike. Judge Hand analyzed the decision thusly: 

"Lennon was still in the defendant's employ, and this was the ground of 
the decision, for though the defendant had directed him to move the cars, 
his refusal was apparently imputed to it, since he was presumably acting, 
within his authority, though contrary to his orders. (Emphasis added). He 
had brought to pass what the court had power to forbid, the defendant's 
neglect to move the cars. It was conceded that if he had not been in the 
defendant's employ, he would have escaped. We think that if his act had been 
without the scope of his authority, the same must be true, for it is not the 
act described which the decree may forbid, but only that act when the de- 
fendant does it." 

Conclusion 

The authorities cited above provide a solid foundation upon which this Court may 
and should find the respondent, George V. Wattendorf, in violation of this Court's 
earlier decree ordering him not to make any distinction because of race or color in 
the conduct of any phase of his real estate business. Indeed, while John J. Coleman 
was personally involved, it would seem only just that the employer who conducts the 
business and reaps its benefits, rather than a subordinate employee, should be 
penalized and held accountable. As the transcript reflects the respondent actively 
participates in the real estate business and spends a large amount of time at the 
618 Washington Street, Dorchester, office wherein is located his sales manager, John J. 
Coleman. It is reasonable to assume that if the respondent, without any equivoca- 
tion, had instructed his employees not to discriminate in any way in the leasing of 
apartments, his sales manager, Coleman — who knew that acts of discrimination on 
his part would most likely result in penalties being levied agains this employer, 
Wattendorf — would have complied with the terms of the decree and not discrim- 
inated against Roger Matthews on the 20th and 22nd of October, 1965. Not only 
should the court protect its decree by finding the respondent guilty of contempt, but 
no evidence in extenuation and mitigation has been offered which would warrant any 
special consideration being given to the respondent, who, it will be noted, did not 
testify in his own behalf or even attend most of the hearings. 



19 



As this Court knows, failure to comply with a decree is primarily of court concern 
and contempt proceedings afford a remedy to the aggrieved party. A fine may be 
levied against the respondent, Wattendorf, and may be designed to reimburse the 
Commonwealth not only for the costs of suit but also for expense of counsel and 
other disbursements in enforcing its rights. Grunberg v. Louison, 343 Mass. 729, 736; 
Root v. MacDonald, 260 Mass. 344, 362. Affidavits are enclosed with this brief for 
purposes of suggesting an appropriate measure of such costs. 

If the Court follows this suggested measure for imposing damages, it would be treat- 
ing this proceeding as a "civil" rather than a "criminal" contempt. The principal 
difference between civil contempt and criminal contempt is that the former proceed- 
ings is remedial and designed to reimburse the petitioner for the respondent's failure 
to obey the decree and insure future compliance, whereas a criminal proceeding is 
designed primarily to vindicate the authority of the court. 

The petitioner respectfully urges that the court should, on this record, hold the 
respondent in contempt, and suggests that a finding of civil contempt coupled with a 
decree ordering payment to the Commonwealth of its reasonable costs and attorneys' 
fees would be an appropriate resolution of this case and would help ensure the right 
of all citizens of the Commonwealth to the dignity and equal treatment which our 
laws guarantee. 

Respectfully submitted, 
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION 

By its attorneys: 

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

JOHN J. ROCHE 

Assistant Attorney General 

Division of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 



COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION 

On Relation of: 

MARJORIE LOUX, et als. 

Complainants 
Against 

BARTENDERS' AND DINING ROOM EM- 
PLOYEES' LOCAL 34, affiliated with and char- 
tered by Hotel and Restaurant Employees and 
Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO 



Respondents 



Statement of Proceedings 
Findings of Fact 

Conclusions of Law 
and Interim Order 
I-20-S 

to I-39-S 

and II-2-S 

to n-6-s 

and II-8-S 
to n-31-S 



This cause came on for hearing before Chairman Malcolm C. Webber and Com 
missioners Ben G. Shapiro and John F. Albano, who, upon consideration of all the 
evidence, set forth the statement of proceedings, and their findings, conclusions, rulings 
and orders as follows: 

Statement of Proceedings 
On various dates from December 14, 1965 to January 24, 1966, individual complaints 
were filed by 49 waitresses, members of Local 277, Hotel Catering and Waitresses 
Union, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International 
Union, AFL-CIO. These complainants alleged that they had presented travel cards 



20 



and dues to the Bartenders and Dining Room Employees Union, Local 34, also 
affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, 
AFL-CIO, and were denied admission to membership because they are female. 

This proceeding arises under G. L, c. 151B, S 4 (2) as amended by Chapter 397, 
Acts of 1965, which prohibits a labor organization from excluding an individual from 
full membership rights because of sex, 

A notice of consolidated proceedings was issued and hearings held before the above- 
named Commissioners, The parties were represented by counsel and the respondent 
union filed an answer denying jurisdiction, claiming federal preemption, claiming 
failure of the complainants to exhaust internal union remedies and denying the alle- 
gations of the complaints. The complainant offered evidence which included as 
exhibits the Constitution of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders In- 
ternational Union and the by-laws of the Hotel, Catering and Waitresses Union, Local 
277. At the conclusion of the complainants' case, the respondent union offered no 
evidence but moved to dismiss all the complaints based on lack of evidence to sub- 
stantiate charges of discrimination based on sex and based on the limitation of the 
statute's protection to "members" rather than to application for admission. 

Findings of Fact 

1. Local 34 of the Bartenders and Dining Room Employees Union (hereinafter 
referred to as Local 34) and Local 277 of the Hotel Catering and Waitresses Union 
(hereinafter referred to as Local 277) are affiliates of the Hotel and Restaurant Em- 
ployees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as the 
International). 

2. Complainants are members in good standing of Local 277 of the Hotel, Catering 
and Waitresses Union and therefore members in good standing of the Hotel and 
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO. 

3. Complainants are qualified waitresses who have done banquet work at various 
hotels along with banquet waiters on a similar basis for equal pay and under similar 
working conditions. Complainants are not disqualified from membership by the excep- 
tion providing for exclusion based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. 

4. The complainants obtained travel cards from Local 277 and deposited these cards 
and their dues books at Local 34 on various dates in November and December, 1965 
and in January, 1966. Complainants have paid dues to Local 34 from the time of 
deposit of their travel cards and dues books. Both the dues and travel cards are being 
held at Local 34. 

5. The complainants have not been admitted to Local 34 as members even though 
they have applied and were members in good standing of Local 277, both affiliated 
with the International. 

6. Local 34 was acting in accordance with its grant from the International which 
limits its jurisdiction to waiters and was awaiting clarification in the matter from the 
International prior to taking any action on the travel cards deposited with it by the 
complainant. To date, the International has taken no action on the matter. 

7. Art. XI, Section 7 of the International's Constitution makes it mandatory for a 
local to accept travel cards; therefore, the question of membership raised by the re- 
spondent union in its motions and brief is irrelevant. 

8. Complainants have made no attempt, directly or indirectly, to obtain banquet 
work through Local 277 after depositing their travel cards at Local 34 but have been 
permitted from time to time to work for Local 34 on a work overflow basis. 

9. Local 34 has not revised its waiters' roll call list to eliminate those persons who 
are not active or who have withdrawn so as to make room for new members. 

10. Local 34 can review its present banquet waiters roll call list to eliminate those 
persons who are not active or who have withdrawn so as to make room for new 
members, including the complainants, on an equal basis regardless of sex. 

Conclusions of Law 

(1) The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination has jurisdiction of this 
case. 

(2) Neither the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the National Labor Relations Law, as 
amended, nor the Landrum-Griffin Law has preempted the field involving discrim- 



21 



ination based on sex by a labor organization. Section 1104 of Title XI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 specifically provides that the state laws in this field are not pre- 
empted by the federal law and section 706(b) of the Act specifically requires that a 
state law be invoked before resort is had to the Equal Employment Opportunity Com- 
mission under Title VII. 

(3) Although the Commission recognizes the existence of jurisdictional grants to 
local affiliates by International Unions, as well as internal remedies found in the 
Constitutions of the International, the laws of the Commonwealth, as enunciated in 
Chapter 151B of the General Laws, prescribe certain requirements which must be 
met by all labor organizations in this Commonwealth. 

(4) Chapter 151B, S 4(2) provides that labor organizations cannot exclude based on 
sex any individual from full membership. This is the law of the Commonwealth and 
applies with equal force to local unions affiliated with a national organization. 

Interim Order 

1) Local 34 shall not discriminate against the complainants who are members 
of a local union affiliated with the same International in admission to mem- 
bership in Local 34 because of their sex. 

2) Local 34 shall immediately notify the International of the decision of this 
Commission in this case and take such other necessary action as is consistent 
with chapter 151B which prohibits discrimination of members based on sex. 

3) Local 34 shall report to the Commission in writing no later than thirty (30) 
days from date of this order what action it has taken relative to admission of 
the complainants in this case into membership in Local 34 for banquet work. 

The Commission reserves jurisdiction over this case and reserves the right to take 
such other affirmative action as it finds necessary to effectuate the purposes of Chapter 
151B and to see that Local 34 has carried out this order. 

s/ MALCOLM C. WEBBER 
Hearing Commissioner 

s/ BEN G. SHAPIRO 

Hearing Commissioner 

s/ JOHN F. ALBANO 

Hearing Commissioner 

Dated May 20, 1966 Boston, County of Suffolk 

Subsequent to the Conclusions of Law and Interim Order issued at the determina- 
tion of the public hearing the following agreement was reached in disposition of the 
complaints: 

NOTICE TO COMPLAINANTS 
Loux et al v. Bartenders and Dining Room Employees, Local 34 

On 23 June 1966 the parties at interest in a conference held in the office of the 
Commission agreed to the following: 

1. The fifty-one complainants will be admitted to full membership rights in Local 
34, Bartenders and Dining Room Employees, provided they meet certain qual- 
ifications. 

2. The qualifications include the up-dating of the transfer card, sometimes called 
travelling card; the payment of back dues of Local 277, Hotel Catering and 
Waitresses Union, and the pavment of dues for the month of July 1966 to Local 
34. 

3. There will be no charge for up-dating the transfer card. 

4. As of 1 July 1966 a new list will be prepared incorporating the names of those 
complainants who have qualified for membership into Local 34. There will be 
a ten day period of grace in the event a complainant cannot qualify by I July 
1966. 

5. Officials of Local 34 will close the membership list and will not accept new 
members, male or female, as soon as the complainants have been admitted to 
Local 34. 



22 



6. Officials of Local 34 will decide whether to add the complainants to the existing 
list or, after review of earnings of those presently listed, fit complainants into 
vacated slots. 

7. There will not be separate roll-calls based on sex. The complainan:s will be 
accorded equal treatment. 

It is recommended that you comply with the above qualifying requisites as soon as 
possible. 

MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION 

By \VALTER H. NOLAN 
Executive Secretary' 



COMMON\VEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST 
DISCRIMINATION 
On Relation of: 
THOMAS J. PIN A 
149 "Warren Avenue 
Boston, Massachusetts 

Cornplaijiant 
Against 

JAMES F. RA\VSON, President 
individually and as representative of mem- 
bership of Local 103 of the International 
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- 
CIO, the members being too numerous to 
name, Respondent 

This cause came in for hearing before Chairman Malcolm C. W^ebber and Commis- 
sioner Ben G. Shapiro and John F. Albano, who, upon consideration of all the evi- 
dence, set forth their findings, conclusion and orders as follows: 

Findings of Fact 

1. The complainant, Thomas J. Pina, is and has been for approximately 9 years 
a licensed Journeyman Electrician. The complainant is a Negro. 

2. Sometime in 1962, on the suggestion of an electrical inspector of the City of 
Boston, the complainant contacted the Business Agent of Local 103, International 
Brotherhood of Electrical ^V'orkers, one Mr. Monahan, for an application to join the 
union. 

3. Mr. Monahan took the application and instructed the complainant to keep 
checking with the union headquarters, which he did. During the w^eks that followed 
Mr. Monahan told the complainant that his application and others were to be pre- 
sented to the Executive Committee. Because of a slowdo"\vTi in employment during 
the winter months, the applications were not presented to the Executive Committee. 

4. The complainant continued to check with the union business manager, either by 
personal visits or by telephone, but he was always told "things haven't broken yet." 

5. Mr. Monahan was replaced as business agent by one Mr. Goodwin with whom the 
complainant continued to check on his application. Mr. Goodwin attempted to place 
him in a job with Mack's Electrical Sign Co. of Everett but he was refused the job 
because of his lack of experience in sign work. 

6. Subsequently, Mr. Goodwin was replaced as Business Agent by one Mr. O'Brien 
with whom the complainant continued his visits at the union headquarters. During 
this time, the union was hiring men who were members of other locals of the Inter- 
national Brotherhood. 

7. Complainant was over-age for the apprenticeship training program. He was 41 
and the age limit for joining the program is 25. 



Executive Department 
Findings of Fact 
Conclusion of Law 
Order 

XIX-37-C 



23 



8. After this complaint was filed, Mr. O'Brien suggested to the complainant that he 
join Solar Electric which was to become a union shop and thereby become a member 
of the union. The complainant declined on the grounds that he had worked for that 
Company previously and resigned because of questionable work practices which he 
believed put his license in jeopardy. 

9. Subsequently, Mr. O'Brien attempted to place the complainant at the Prudential 
Center as a maintenance electrician. The complainant declined for the reason that he 
was a construction electrician which job paid $5. per hour while the job of main- 
tenance electrician paid only $3.45 per hour. He was told that after five years he 
could change his membership from maintenance electrician to construction elec- 
trician. 

10. The complainant had not had previous experience in large construction at the 
time of his negotiation with the union but had more than a year's experience in other 
forms of construction work. 

11. After the complaint had been filed, the complainant was told that he could not 
join the union directly and that no one had been taken into the local directly for 15 
years. He was told that he could obtain membership only through the apprentice- 
ship program, or through transfer from another local, or by being employed in a shop 
when the shop was unionized. 

12. There are about 2000 members in Local 103 and the complainant knows 4 Ne- 
groes who are members, all having been admitted after the complaint was filed. The 
union takes from 50 to 75 from the apprenticeship program. 

13. Several persons were admitted as union members from time to time pursuant to 
agreements made with the owners of shops in which they worked at the time the shops 
were organized. At the time the shops were organized, they had not met the require- 
ments of the union. Also, school teachers and wire inspectors are permitted direct 
admission to the union. 

14. Local 103 has on file from 500 to 600 applications for membership. Persons are 
admitted from this group by vote of the membership after recommendation from the 
executive committee. Their selection is based on the request of friends or relatives 
within the union, favors requested from contractors, and other forms of influence. 

15. The complainant appeared before the Executive Committee but was never rec- 
ommended for membership. 

16. Local 103 establishes its membership limitation by projected needs for available 
workers in the future, and its current established policy is to bring in through the 
apprenticeship program all the manpower required in the projected future. 

17. The apprenticeship training program of Local 103 cooperates with the Appren- 
ticeship Information Center set up by the Division of Employment Security to benefit 
minority groups. Tests are administered and graded by personnel from the Massa- 
chusetts Department of Education. 

18. The fact that the complainant was a Negro had no bearing on his failure to be 
admitted to Local 103. 

Conclusion of Law 

The above findings do not disclose any violation of C. 151 B by the respondent. 

Order 

The complaint is dismissed. 

Comment. We wish to make it clear that the findings in this case in no way should 
be construed to mean that we approve of the admission policies of this union. We 
confine ourselves, as we must, to the issue of alleged violation under C. 15 IB. How- 
ever, we take notice from the small number of Negroes admitted to this union, all 
since the filing of this complaint, that there have been absent from within the 
membership of this union the necessary influences which have opened the doors of this 
union to others. We fail to see how an organization within our democratic society can 
take pride in having failed to recognize the obvious needs of minorities to be given 
equal access to the benefits of unionism which this union has established as so valuable 
by the simple fact that it has worked so hard to justify its restrictions to membership. 

This Commission cannot ignore the fact that during the pendency of this complaint, 
this complainant has had no difficulty finding employment with construction in the 



24 



Greaicr Boston area. We see no reason why this should not continue. However, 
should this complainant find that he is no longer permitted employment, this Com- 
mission may well draw the inference that the filing of this complaint has some bearing 
on this changed situation. Should this occur, this Commission will not hesitate to 
exercise its full powers in regard to such a development. 
DATED: June 23, 1966 

MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST 
DISCRIMINATION 

s/ MALCOLM C. WEBBER, Chairman 
s/ BEN G. SHAPIRO, Commissioner 
s/ JOHN F. ALBANO, Commissioner 



COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST 
DISCRIMINATION 
On Relation of: 
SEGUNDO CRUZ and ARLEEN CRUZ 
Complainants 

Against 

GERALD J. LaPIERRE, 

Respondent 

This cause came on for hearing before Hearing Commissioners Malcolm C. Webber, 
Ben G. Shapiro and Ruth M. Batson, who, upon consideration of all the evidence, 
set forth their findings, conclusions and orders as follows: 

Findings of Fact 

1. The complainant, Segundo Cruz, is a Puerto Rican and the complainant, Arleen 
Cruz, is his wife. Complainants live in Webster, Massachusetts. 

2. The respondent, Gerald La Pierre, is the owner of an apartment building con- 
taining 6 apartments at 105 Charlton Street, Southbridge. The respondent was offer- 
ing for rental to the public one of these apartments located on the third floor left of 
the building. 

3. Sometime in the fall prior to the month of October, 1965, Mrs. Cruz learned of a 
vacant apartment in the premises at 105 Charlton Street, Southbridge. She went to 
the premises and was let into the apartment by a tenant on the second floor left who 
had the keys in her possession. Said tenant was not authorized to show the apart- 
ment but had possession of the keys in the event of any damage to plumbing, etc. 
within the apartment. Mrs. Cruz examined the apartment, expressed her desire to 
rent it and inquired when she could reach the owner. 

4. Upon learning that the respondent was the owner, Mrs. Cruz made several trips 
to his place of business, LaPierre Mill Works, and several telephone calls to him at 
the same place. While at his place of business, she spoke with the respondent's fore- 
man who told her that he did not have the keys and she would have to see the re- 
spondent. Each time she telephoned she was told that she would have to speak with 
the respondent who was not in at the time. She left her name and telephone number 
and asked to be called back. The respondent's business takes him out of town a good 
deal and when he is out his foreman accepts inquiries about his vacant apartments, 
sometimes shows them, and leaves written messages for him. The respondent assumes 
full authority for selecting the tenants of his apartments. 

5. Several times prior to and during the month of October, the respondent's fore- 
man took calls from Mrs. Cruz inquiring about the vacant apartment on 105 Charlton 
Street. The respondent's foreman left written messages regarding these calls for the 
respondent in the usual manner. The respondent never returned the calls to Mrs. 
Cruz. 



Findings of Fact 
Conclusions of Law 
and Orders 

SPrHII-29-NO 



25 



6. During the week of October 12, Mr. and Mrs. Crifz were visiting Mrs. Cruz's sister, 
one Gloria Grzembski, who lives in Southbridge. While at Mrs. Grzembski's home, 
Mrs. Cruz telephoned the LaPierre Mill Works and inquired of the vacant apartment 
at i05 Charlton Street. Mrs. Cruz spoke to a man who told her she would have to 
speak to the respondent and that he was out at the time. Immediately thereafter, Mrs. 
Grzembski called the LaPierre Mill Works and inquired of the vacant apartment at 
105 Charlton Street. She spoke with the respondent's foreman who told her that he 
would make arrangements for her to see the apartment. He told her that he would 
call her that night or later in the afternoon. Without waiting for the call, Mrs. 
Grzembski went to the premises at 105 Charlton Street. She examined the apartment 
having been let in by the tenant on the second floor. Later she received a call from 
the respondent and told him she had already seen the apartment. The respondent 
asked if she was interested in the apartment. She answered that she was but that she 
would have to discuss it with her husband. She asked if she could have the apartment 
should she decide she wanted it. The respondent replied that she could. No references 
to credit requirements or questions of credit were made. 

7. On or about October 15, 1965, one Mrs. Shirley Snitzer, Chairman of the Fair 
Housing Committee of Southbridge, Sturbridge and Webster, went to the LaPierre 
Mill Works and inquired of the respondent about the availability of the apartment at 
105 Charlton Street. She told him that she wanted to examine the apartment for 
her "cousin." The respondent told her that it was still available and that it would 
take 2 or 3 days to fix it up. He gave her the key and told her where in the building 
the vacant apartment was located and that it would rent for $17.00 a week. There- 
upon, Mrs. Snitzer drove to the home of the complainant, told them she had the key, 
and asked that they accompany her to the apartment. Mrs. Cruz and Mrs. Snitzer 
entered the premises and examined the apartment. Thereafter, they proceeded to 
the LaPierre Mill Works. 

8. Mrs. Cruz and Mrs. Snitzer entered the respondent's Mill and were met by the 
respondent and his foreman. Mrs. Snitzer informed the respondent that Mrs. Cruz was 
the "cousin" for whom she wanted the apartment. Mrs. Cruz was not, in fact, Mrs. 
Snitzer's cousin. Mrs. Cruz identified herself to the respondent as "Mrs. Segundo Cruz," 
told him that she wanted the apartment, and offered to place a $20. deposit on it. The 
respondent declined to take the deposit, giving as his reasons that the apartment was 
not ready, that he would have to do a credit check on her and that the rent would 
be at a monthly rate. Mrs. Snitzer gave the respondent her address and telephone 
number and requested to call her as soon as he decided to let the complainant have 
the apartment. The respondent did not request any information of a personal nature 
from Mrs. Cruz. The respondent did not call Mrs. Snitzer. 

9. After complaint had been filed with the Commission on October 19, 1965, and 
during a visit from a field representative of the Commission, Roger Williams, who was 
sent to investigate the complaint, the respondent consented to accept a deposit and 
stated that he wanted to run a credit check. About a month later, the respondent 
wrote to the complainants and told them that he had to run a credit check and 
deemed their credit unsatisfactory. He told them that he would not rent them the 
apartment. 

10. The respondent had a credit check run on the complainants by his local bank. 
At no time and for no other tenant or prospective tenant had the respondent run a 
credit check. 

11. No credit check had been made at the time of the alleged unlawful practice. 
The respondent had no basis for denying the complainants the apartment because of 
alleged unsatisfactory credit at the time of the illegal act. Only after complaint had 
been filed with the Commission alleging the unlawful act did the respondent seek 
information regarding the complainant's credit. 

12. The respondent knew that the complainant, Segundo Cruz, was Puerto Rican 
at the time of the commission of the unlawful act. The respondent declined to re- 
spond in his usual way to telephone messages from Mrs. Cruz which were left him by 
his foreman because he knew Segundo Cruz was Puerto Rican. The sole reason for 
respondent's denying the complainant's rental of the apartment in question was that 
Segundo Cruz was Puerto Rican, 



26 



Conclusion 

(1) The apartment in question in thb proceeding located at 105 Charlton Street, 
Southbridge, comes within the definition of "other covered housing accommodations," 
within the meaning of Clause 12 of Section 1 of the General Laws, chapter 151B. 

(2) The course of conduct, the statemenis and dealings wi:h respect :o complainants. 
Segundo Cruz and Arleen Cruz, husband and wife, were such as to amount to a refusal 
to negotiate with them in good faith for the leasing of said apartment because of his 
national origin and were an unlawful practice within the meaning of General Laws, 
chapter 151B, section 4. 

(3) The respondent's course of conduct, statements and dealings with respect to the 
complainants. Segundo Cruz and Arleen Cruz, husband and wife, were such to con- 
stitute a denial to and withholding from them of said apartment because of his na- 
tional origin and were unlawful practices within the meaning of General Laws, chapter 
151 B, section 4. 

Order 

Upon the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and pursuant to Seciion 5, Chap- 
ter 151 B. of the General Laws of Massachusetts, it is hereby 
ORDERED, by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 

1. That respondent, Gerald J. LaPierre, his agents, servants, employees, assigns and 
successors shall: 

a) Cease and desist from denying to and withholding from said Segundo Cruz and 
Arleen Cruz, the said housing accommodations located at 105 Charlton Street, 
Southbridge. 

b) Offer forthwith to complainants, Segundo Cruz and Arleen Cruz, the said housing 
accommodations located at 105 Charlton Street, Southbridge. 

c) If said Segundo Cruz and Arleen Cruz no longer desire to rent said accommoda- 
tions, cease and desist from denying any other prospective tenant, on the basis of 
race, creed, color, national origin or national ancestn", the opportunity to rent 
or lease or negotiate for the rental or lease of said housing accommodations a: 
such time or times as said housing accommodations may again hereafter be 
directly or through an agent made generally available to the public for lease or 
rental, by any means of public offering. 

2. Xotif^" the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination at its ofl&ces at 41 
Tremont Street, Boston, 02108, within thirty (30) days after service of this Order, as to 
steps respondent, Gerald J. LaPierre has taken to comply with such Order. 

s/ MALCOLM C. ^VEBBER 

Hearing Commissioner 

s/ BEX G. SHAPIRO 

Hearing Commissioner 

s/ RUTH M. BATSOX 

Hearing Commissioner 

Dated Januars" 28, 1966 at Boston, Suffolk County 

The respondent appealed to the Superior Court the order issued by the Commission. 
After judicial review the Court remanded the case to the Commission for further 
proceedings. The Commission then issued the following order: 

COMMOX^VEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSIOX AGAIXST 
DISCRIMIXATIOX 
On Relation of: 
SEGUXDO CRUZ and ARLEEX CRUZ 
Complainants 
Against 

GERALD J. LaPIERRE 

Respondent 



Findings of Fact 
Conclusions of Law 
and Orders 

SPrHn-29-NO 



27 



This cause came on for hearing before Hearing Commissioners Malcolm Webber 
and Ben G. Shapiro, having been remanded for further proceedings from the Superior 
Court of 'Worcester County. Upon consideration of all the evidence, the Commissioners 
set forth their findings as follows: 

The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the Orders served on the respondent 
Februarv 28, 1966 are hereby reaffirmed; provided, however, that the following 
paragraph shall be added to said order: 

3. Cease and desist and in the future refrain from making any inquiry, distinction, 
discrimination, or restriction on account of color, race, creed, national origin or 
national ancestry in the conduct of any phase of the respondent's business as an 
owner of housing accommodations. 

s/ MALCOLM C. WEBBER 
Hearing Commissioner 

s/ BEN G. SHAPIRO 

Hearing Commissioner 

Dated Boston 10-10-66 



THE COMMONWEALTH OF ^LASSACHUSETTS 

MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST 
DISCRIMINATION 
On Relation of: 
BERTHA HARRIS 

Complainant 
Against 

JULIUS PONN, ALICE PONN, ALLAN PONN, 
and JOAN CAROL PONN, 

Respondents 

This cause came on for hearing before Hearing Commissioners Malcolm C. Webber, 
Ben G. Shapiro and John F. Albano, who, upon consideration of all the evidence set 
forth their findings, conclusions and orders as follows: 

Findings of Fact 

1. The complainant, Mrs. Bertha Harris, is a member of the Negro race. The com- 
plainant lives in Roxbury, Massachusetts. 

2. The respondent, Joan Carol Ponn, is the owner of record of an apartment build- 
ing at 104 Montebello Road, Jamaica Plain, and the wife of respondent, Allan Ponn. 
The respondent, Allan Ponn, is in charge of the rental of t